The Blaze: Mary Ramirez: 'I’m Done Apologizing For Being White, And You Should Be Too'

Source: The Blaze-

Source:The Daily Review

I feel an accusation that I'm a racist coming in the near future, because I don't see all Caucasians as racists and bigots in general, or that we have some monopoly on racism and bigotry in general in this country. But we'll wait and see.

Just to give some of my own views about race in America and as it's called. It was African-American freedom fighter Rosa Parks who had the courage and was right to stand up for her own rights not as an African-American, but simply as an American citizen in refusing to give up her bus seat to a Caucasian-American, who said 'that the only race is the human race.' Dr. Martin Luther King and his I Have a Dream speech, 'I have a dream that one day my children will grow up and not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.' I'm paraphrasing, but that is very close. The only thing I would add to that dream is that all children in America grow up and see that dream as the new reality or the new normal. In a society like that no one is judging people by race, but by character.

When I say I don't see race, I mean I don't judge people by race. Anyone can see the racial differences between Europeans, African-Asians, North Americans and everyone else. That is not the question. The question is do we judge people by the race and ethnicity that we see, or by the individual and their character and how they present themselves in life as an individual. And not just that, but I also don't identify by race and certainly not by color. Not all African-Americans have black skin. Not all Caucasians have white skin and if you look at the color of white in reality like a white t-shirt, no one has that complexion anyway. Asians whether their ancestors come from Central Asia, South Asia, or the Far-East, obviously don't have yellow skin.

So if we're going to have a conversation about race in America are we going to talk about race, or is this about color? Two different things. And to say that some people have white blood, some people have black blood and some people have brown blood. the only blood I've ever seen is red. So that's not a way to talk about race either. Barack Obama doesn't have black or white blood, but only red blood. He's not black or white, but brown. He's got Irish and American-Indian ancestry on his mother's side and Kenyan blood on his father's side. He's both an African and European-American, as well as an American-Indian. He celebrates St. Patrick's Day, because he's Irish on his mother's side. So are we talking about race, or color, or both? And when it comes to mix-race people, well they might not have one color in their complexion, but a combination of colors. Depending on the person.

When it comes to apologizing about being Caucasian or anything else, why should anyone do that? Should everyone speak out against bigots in their racial and ethnic communities when they make ignorant statements about other ethnicities and races? Of course they should if they know what that person said is bigoted. But this idea that anyone should apologize for being how they were born regardless of how they were born, their complexion, how their hair looks and how their face is shaped, etc, of course not. Why should individuals apologize for how they were born. It is one thing to denounce your own bigotry and say you were wrong about that and are now sorry for it.  But it's another to apologize for how you were born. Which is something that none of us can obviously control. We aren't born bigots. That is something that people have to learn and then accept.
Source:Ilya Gokaadze

Young Americans For Liberty: George Carlin- On Individualism

Source:Young Americans For Liberty- comedian George Carlin.

Source:The Daily Review 

"George Carlin — American Comedian born on May 12, 1937, died on June 22, 2008

George Denis Patrick Carlin was an American stand-up comedian, social critic, actor, and author. Carlin was noted for his black comedy and his thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven dirty words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 54 decision affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves... 

From Quotes Gram 

"George Carlin describes his process of organizing his life experiences into his comedy routines.

ABOUT THE PALEY CENTER:

In an era of rapid change in media and technology, the not-for-profit Paley Center for Media explores the evolving ways in which we create, consume, and connect through media. With locations in New York and Los Angeles, and the foremost public archive of television and radio programming, the Paley Center produces and curates programs, forums, and educational activities that engage the general public, industry professionals, and the creative community in an ongoing conversation about the impact of media on our lives. The Paley Center for Media is a hub of innovation and connection for entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers with its finger on the pulse of the next big thing in media go to the Paley Center to learn more." 

Source:Paley Center- comedian George Carlin in 2008.

From the Paley Center

George Carlin, I believe was the most individualists of individualists. Perhaps not the father of individualism, but perhaps the president of it. A man who didn't play team sports, because always wanted to be himself. Imagine if we had a culture of individualists instead of a culture of faddists. Who believe there worthless or something if they don't have the latest i-phone or i-pad, or whatever the current thing is that people have to have, or you might see them inline to jump off a bridge. Because their current device is a week old instead of just buying it brand new today. George Carlin and myself, aren't against technology. I don't think he's as popular as he's today without it and I'm not doing what I'm doing without it. But he was against cloning and faddism.

People are exactly that. We all at start out in life as ourselves and what we do with that is up to us. A faddist and unfortunately I know plenty of them goes with the current trend. Whatever is considered cool or awesome. They vote for politicians, because that person is cool, or shares the same phone and watches the same programs as they do. Individualists vote for people based on who they think would be the best person for the office that they're voting on. Individuals make individual decisions. What's best for them and what they believe and what they want to do. They don't camp out at stores so they're one of the five people to have the latest whatever as soon as it goes on sale. They buy a new phone or whatever the thing is when they need one. And buy what is best for them.

If you noticed George Carlin was an individualist comedian as well. He was well-read and well-informed on the news and talked and made fun of things and people based on what he thought was important and what interest him. Not about whatever the popular subject was at the time. And was so good at what he did that he brought people to him and actually got him to think. He might be the only comedian who could get Millennial's who are interested in current affairs to put their i-phone down for more than five-minutes. Scratch that, maybe he could only do it for a minute, but in today's society that would still be impressive. Because Carlin could get people to think about things they've never thought about before and think about things they have thought about, but look at them differently. Like when it comes to politicians and blaming the voters who voted for them. And is someone who can't be replaced and is still missed.

Young Americans For Liberty: Thomas Sowell- On Freedom of Choice

Source:Young Americans For Liberty- Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell talking about how Big Government destroys freedom of choice.

Source:The New Democrat 

Freedom of Choice and personal and economic freedom in general is just that. The freedom to decide what is best for yourself. Not what is best for others. Not the freedom to hurt people other than in self-defense, but the freedom for one to make their own decisions and have the personal responsibility to live with the consequences of their decisions. To consume alcohol or not, to smoke tobacco or not, to even use marijuana or not, to marry or not and the same things for gays. The freedom to gamble one's own money or not. The freedom to watch an adult film or not. The freedom to read adult material and listen to graphic music and watch graphic entertainment or not. Not the freedom to make these decisions for others, because you approve of them. Ot to deny others from making these decisions for themselves, because you don't approve of them.

If there is a free market and of course there isn't and I've argued this a lot in the past, but if there were a free market it would be an individual market based on choice. Where we can all make these decisions for ourselves and then be held responsible for the decisions that we make. A free market of individuals, not a market of business's that would go unregulated and untaxed with the freedom over our own lives as far as what we consume, because even if there are a lot of different products, there would be very few competitors, because of all the unregulated monopolization in the market. But a true individual market where all free adults make these decisions themselves with a wide-range of different business's and competitors, because monopoly is truly illegal. With an educated public that has all the information that they need to make their own decisions.

Freedom of Choice is always something that I believe in as a Liberal. Because that along with Freedom of Speech and equality opportunity and equal rights and justice for all, is really what liberalism is about. I don't want to force people to make the same decisions that I did. Or be held responsible for the decisions that I made. I just want the freedom to make my own decisions and given the responsibility to personally live up to the consequences of my decisions. Not eliminate government and get it out-of-the-way all together. We still need a regulator to regulate how people interact with each other and to punish when the innocent are harmed. But let people make their own personal decisions short of hurting innocent people and hold them personally responsible for their own decisions.

The American Thinker: Don Feder: 'All Aboard Starship Bernie Sanders!'

Source:The Daily Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) The President of Free Stuff From Government. LOL

Source:The Daily Review 

"The chattering class is amazed at the rise of avowed socialist Bernard Sanders, running against hyper-welfarist Hillary Clinton. But Sanders’s campaign is just the latest chapter in the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch -- from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama.

When MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the differences between a Democrat and a socialist, she changed the subject. Hillary Clinton snapped “I’m not going to get into it. You’d have to ask him [Sanders]” -- or you can check her e-mails. In a 2010 Gallup Poll, 53% of Democrats said they had a positive impression of socialism." 

From The American Thinker

Perhaps the first time ever I read a post on The American Thinker where it looked like there was some real thinking involved in the writer's piece. 

Anytime a Socialist politician running for high office and in this case not the highest office in the country, but the highest office in the world (in President of the United States) anytime that politician promises free stuff from government, ask that person how much is this free stuff going to cost you. Anyone who pays taxes in America pays for the government they receive. And in some cases we pay for the government we don't receive. If you're fortunate to never be unemployed in America, you'll never receive the Unemployment Insurance that you pay for. And that is just one example.

The weakness that Socialists in America have and why they've never caught on for the most part at least in high office, is because they're so big centralized government-centric. And again everything that government does it has to charge it's taxpayers for the cost. Or borrow the money from another country which we pay in interest relates. 

The old cliche "money doesn't grow on trees" should have been the first thing that anyone ever read when studying either economics, government, or political philosophy, especially socialism. I guess today's Millennial's who are at least technically studying economics were too busy camping out at the Apple Store the night before so they could say they were one of the first five people to buy the latest i-phone and be able to post that on Facebook and over slept that night and missed the money doesn't grow on trees economic lesson.

Millennial's, especially need to at least try to understand this. Spend one day not hyped up on Red Bull, coffee, or alcohol and focus during one government and economics lesson. Because they need to know that all of the promises that Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, now what seventeen-trillion-dollars in counting, or is it thirty-trillion-dollars, hell lets make it hundred-trillion-dollars (I have a hard time keeping up with Socialists when it comes to taxes and government) hey need to know that if for some reason Bernie were to ever become President of the United States (which might only happen if all of Hillary Clinton's voters are kidnapped, or deported by Donald Trump) that everything that Bernie is promising will come with a huge cost in taxes. Nothing free about government.

CATO Institute: Sheldon Richman- Dissolving the Inkblot: Privacy as Property Right

Source:CATO Institute.

Source:The New Democrat

I love the U.S. Constitution for what it is, because I see it as the one document that protects all of our individual freedom in America, both personal and economic. As all Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians should. And I would never remove or amend any of our amendments in it, or the Bill of Rights.  But if there were two things that I would add to it, it would be two new additional constitutional rights. The Right to a Quality Education, so no one is trapped in a bad school simply because they come from low-income parents, or a low-single single-parent. And what this is really about and maybe I would amend the Fourth Amendment to include this, or just create a new amendment, but I would add a guaranteed right to Freedom of Choice.

Where I agree with Libertarian Economist Walter Williams is that property rights extends to one's self. Their own body and because that we're all responsible for our own personal decisions. Even when people make bad decisions for us, it is us that have to live with them and in a sense we become responsible for someone else's bad decisions. I actually have personal experience with this. And given that and given we live in a liberal democracy and free society we should be responsible for one's self, as well as our kids until they come of age. But we and government shouldn't be responsible for making the decisions for other free adults in their own personal lives. So instead of someone telling us, no you can't do that when it comes to our own personal decisions, we should make those decisions ourselves. Just as long as we aren't hurting innocent person's or people.

The Freedom of Choice, is not the freedom to hurt innocent people. It is the freedom for one to make their own decisions and as long as they aren't hurting innocent people and then held personally responsible for their own bad decisions for good and bad. And that is where self-ownership and self-government comes in. The right for people to self-govern themselves and make their own decisions. Not someone's else's decisions. Like whether to live healthy or not, whether to live or not, whether to gamble or not, whether to smoke marijuana or not, whether to either pay for sex, or sell themselves for sex or not. And I could go on, but hopefully you have other things you would like to do in your lifetime than to read this indefinite list.  But the freedom for people to make their own personal and economic decisions. And then be held personally responsible for them.

Freedom of Choice, is yes the freedom to decide, but just because someone has that freedom doesn't necessarily mean they'll do that. It just means they have the personal freedom to make their own decisions. To drink alcohol, or not, to smoke marijuana, or not, to have a homosexual relationship and marriage, or not and again I could go, but I trust you have lives. It says that as intelligent and educated as a group of individuals in government might be, that generally they're and others are better off if they make their own decisions instead of making the personal decisions of others. And then set the rules for how people should interact with each other. But not decide for everyone else just because they may think someone is bad or dangerous and can even make a good case for that, that no one else should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

Big Think: John Cleese- Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare

Source:Big Think-British comedian John Cleese.

Source:The Daily Review

If you're familiar with the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell plots a situation where a country is run by a special elite, or Board of Experts. That would decide what is best and appropriate for everyone else in the country. Including the most private and personal of activities like how we think and what we say. Well if you're familiar with the political correctness movement you know that is what the people in this movement want to do when it comes to thought and speech in this country. And would like to decide what is appropriate for everyone else when it comes to how we think and speak in this country.

Anyone familiar with comedy knows that it is about as non-partisan an institution as you'll ever see. It doesn't target groups, but people who do and say funny things and things that could be embarrassing for them. Stupid things and activities that famous people could be involved in. Comedy generally speaking is not about race. Except for comedians who make it about race and take the idea that making fun of Caucasians or minorities, is perfectly acceptable, but when you make fun of the other you're a bigot. My other issue with political correctness and why I can't take it seriously and don't bother to struggle to do so is the hypocrisy of it. Making fun of Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants, perfectly okay. But if you make a hip-hop joke you're a bigot in their view.

Free speech and comedy go together like chocolate cake and vanilla ice cream. Perfectly, but free speech and fascism/political correctness, are like hot dogs with peanut butter. Mustard with apple pie. I fate fascism and like mustard, but not with apple pie. Salesman need to go where the customers are and comedians need to go where the jokes are. You can't restrict a salesman when they pick customers, because it might offend other customers. And you can't restrict comedians, because one group or groups of people can't handle legitimate criticism, or having their short-comings made fun of. If you want to have a successful business and a comedy industry that thrives and makes people with sense of humors laugh.

For the oversensitive Americans amongst us regardless of race or ethnicity, comedy is probably not for you. And you should stick with your coffee houses and French poetry readings and reality TV. And when you want comedy listen to some Far-Left comedian bashing rich people especially rich Caucasian men and claiming how much they're destroying the country. And leave comedy in general for people who like to laugh and don't give a damn about who is getting made fun of as long as the jokes are funny and in good taste. Making fun of someone's real short-comings  and especially doing it in a critical informative way, is not bigoted. But informative and a way of educating people.

To suggest one group of Americans or groups of Americans, are off limits when it comes to comedy, even though we live in a liberal democracy and liberal democratic republic, with a liberal guarantee of free speech, is to suggest one group of Americans, or group of Americans are somehow perfect in an imperfect world. But not only that, it also suggest that you might live in the wrong country. That liberal democracy is too hard for you and you need to live a place where people tell you what to think and what to say. Because you can't think for yourself and don't believe anyone else can either. Perhaps the country in Nineteen Eighty-Four, would be a good country for you. And leave America for people who love individual freedom including free speech and are smart enough to handle it.

Libertarian Party: Gary Johnson- The Only Presidential Choice For Liberty Still Standing

Source:Liberty Party-

Source:The New Democrat

If we're looking at a Donald Trump-Bernie Sanders presidential election in 2016, you'll see Mike Bloomberg run for president (The Nanny Statist in-Chief Running For Commander-In-Chief) and the Gary Johnson campaign will just become that more important.

With the two big government candidates trying to out big government the other. The Donald, waking up little Latino kids in the middle of the night to kick them out of the country, because they're parents are here illegally, or brought them here illegally. As well as throwing out Freedom of Religion for Muslims and nationalizing Mosques. Feel The Bern, is really feeling Uncle Sam with his hands stuck in the pockets and taking from your wallets from you. Because Uncle Sam is addicted to other people's money and wants to tax every dollar possible from everyone. Because he knows best how to spend everyone's money better for them. According to every Socialist's favorite uncle and other American's worst nightmare in Uncle Sam. That Bernie Sanders thinks is simply not powerful enough and doesn't have enough of other people's money.

Assuming The Donald and The Bern are the top two major presidential candidates and I think they're still a long shot at this point, but for the fun of it lets say they are, Gary Johnson who is what I at least would describe as a Left-Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, running against a Democratic Socialist in Bernie and a reality TV actor in Donald Trump running as a Fascist Neoconservative, you have to have someone in there to say, no! Big government from the Far-Left, or Far-Right, is never the solution. And you need someone who will return power to the people from an economic and personal standpoint. And send power to the states as well. While Washington gets its fiscal house in order and gets the economy going again. That is what a Gary Johnson for president will represent. Especially running against a Fascist and Socialist.

See Progress: The History of Progressivism

Source:Progressive Party-

Source:The New Democrat

In this piece I'm going to layout what progressivism is and what it isn't and also why I believe Hillary Clinton is the Progressive Democrat running for president and why Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Socialist, whose running for president as a Democrat as well. When you think of Progressive, you should think progress and someone who believes in progress. Moving the ball forward, making things better and yes using government and giving government a role in creating that progress.

But not the only role and you're not taxing people so high that they no longer have to take responsibility over their own lives. Like when it comes to health care, health insurance, education, childcare, pension, housing, whether to join a union or not, or personal freedom choices. Like what to eat and drink, how to spend your money, how we communicate to people and what we say in public. Progressives, helped write the U.S. Constitution and created the American Federal Republic. They didn't oppose it. The Progressive Era of the early 20th Century was about creating a public safety net for the United States, to go along with everything that we already had as a country. Not to completely remake America into some social democracy, or some socialist state.

Socialists, meaning Democratic Socialists and Progressives aren't the same people with two different labels. Lyndon Johnson and Bernie Sanders, aren't the same political animals. Senator Sanders, is much further left than President Johnson ever was. Especially on economic policy, but national security as well. Not to say that Senator Sanders doesn't believe in national defense and wouldn't defend the homeland, but President Johnson was a strong anti-Communist and Cold Warrior. And would never call for the deep budget cuts in defense that Bernie favors. Progressives, created the National Security State. Progressives, created the tools like the United Nations, NATO, Department of Defense, CIA and other agencies, that helped win the Cold War. Socialists, have opposed these things from the start.

The political core of a Progressive is someone who believes that everyone in society should have a quality opportunity to succeed as best as they can. That economic success and freedom shouldn't be tied to the income level of one's parents, but to the individual's work, education and what they're able to create for themselves based on what they invest in society themselves. So Progressives, believe in public education, public infrastructure, a public safety net for people who truly need it. Freedom to Assembly, Right to Organize and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as a whole. But Socialists would go much further than that and want a society where the individual isn't so responsible for their own lives. And where the central government assumes a lot of that responsibility. So no one has too much, or too little, in their view.

Again Progressives, aren't Democratic Socialists and Progressives believe in things like personal responsibility and a strong national defense. That America can't police the world by ourselves, but that we have to play our part. Socialists, tend to be more isolationist and dovish, soft on defense would be a way of putting that. Scandinavia and Canada, are good examples of that. Whereas America, Germany, France, tend to believe in internationalism and working with their allies and even using military force when they believe it can make a positive difference. France, is a big part of the coalition against ISIS right now in Syria and bombing ISIS right now and Germany is also part of that coalition. So the Progressive, doesn't blame society when people do horrible things. They hold person who committed the horrible acts responsible. The Socialist, might say that society is to blame here and give the criminal a pass.

The reason why Hillary Clinton is the Progressive running for president, because she believes in both progress. But also governing and when it comes to our government with checks and balances and separation of powers and divided government, she knows that you can't always have everything your way and that most times you won't. That you have to work with the other party to move the ball forward and make things better. To accomplish progressives goals and live up to your progressive values. Progressives are realists and govern from realism. The Socialist would probably say that moving the ball forward is not good enough. If people still live in poverty, don't have health insurance, are unemployed, aren't getting a good education, etc. And the reasons for this is that government is big enough and doesn't have enough responsibility in these areas. Which is where Bernie Sanders tends to operate from. He being an idealistic Socialist against the Pragmatic Progressive in Hillary Clinton.

Bernardo Santos Carmo: Judy Garland With Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin (1962)

Source:Bernardo Santos Carmo- Frank & Judy. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Judy, Frank and Dean Martin in this memorable 1962 show." 

From Bernardo Santos Carmo

You're going to have a harder time finding three better singers and really performers when you're talking about Judy, Frank and Dean, performing together on the same show, then Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. That is how big Judy Garland was and the amount of star power that she had that she could bring in those two great performers. The two top stars in the Rat Pack that she was friends with and worked with. 

I emphasize performers here, because Judy, Frank and Dean, were more than singers. They were all great singers as well, but they were entertainers. Dean Martin, an accomplished singer, actor and comedian. Frank Sinatra, the Chairman of the Board, The Voice, perhaps the singer of all-time, as well as an accomplished actor and someone with the comedic wit and timing of a great comedian. Judy Garland, accomplished singer and actress, who also had a great comedic wit and timing. You put these three together and also throw in that they're friends and you have a great show. 

Economic Policy Journal: Walter Block: 'Why This Push Toward Milton Friedman?'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dr. Walter Block responds to an inquiry from  Sadaf Hussain of the Centre for Civil Society, New Dehli...

From the Economic Policy Journal

Source:Sidewinder- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

"A student poses a series of question on based on Friedman's notion that people should pursue their own self-interest. The student points out that he'd read that Friedman had previously come out against disaster aid for victims of a flood in Pennsylvania. Friedman corrected the questioner and noted that he did not come out against private aid for flood victims but instead was against the Federal Government providing discounted flood insurance in advance to home purchasers which motivated people to build houses in areas where they otherwise would not have been able to obtain insurance privately. If not for the discounted insurance, it's likely many of the flooded houses would never have been built in the first place as it wouldn't have been in peoples self-interest."

From Sidewinder

I don't agree with Milton Friedman on everything once you get part the message of maximize freedom for everyone as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. Which I agree with him on probably 99% of the way. I support the safety net as an insurance system, but only for people who truly need it and to be used to help people get themselves on their own feet and off of the safety net all together. And here's another area where I agree with Professor Friedman on. Even though he wouldn't have created the New Deal and Great Society, he said that as long as we have a public social insurance system it should be used to lift people up and not keep them down. That people on Welfare should be looking for work and be able to earn money on the side while on Welfare.

I basically look at my politics from the standpoint as a Classical Liberal (not Libertarian) who is influenced by Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Martin O'Malley today and other what are called New Democrats. (The Real Liberals in the Democratic Party) People who believe success in life shouldn't be determined on whether you have wealthy parents, or not. But the quality of your parents and the opportunities that you create for yourself based on what your parents gave you and what you created for yourself. That the success of the individual should be determined based on the quality of their parents, community, education and at the end of the day what the individual does for themselves. Did they complete their education, find a good field for them and made the best out of that, that they could. Not whether their parents are wealthy, or not.

Milton Friedman is part of my political influence. Part of my political package that I use to voice my own politics and views. That it's not the job of government to take care of people, but to protect our freedom. Now my role for government while still very limited is a bit bigger than Milton's, we look at a lot of things the same way. That individual freedom, success, wealth and even extreme wealth, are actually good things. And that the problem is not that we have rich people, but that we don't have enough rich people and too many people in poverty. And where I differ with Milton is that I believe an effective limited government can be used to see that everyone has the access to the tools that they need to create their own freedom. Education, infrastructure, economic development, a safety net again for people who only need it, but is used to expand freedom and not government dependence. But I believe Milton and I share most of the same goals when it comes to freedom in America.