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.

The American Thinker: Tom Trinko: Returning Power to the People

Source:Slide Player- Federalism is a decentralize form of government.

Source:The New Democrat

I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist and for people who have stereotypical views about what Liberals and liberalism actually are and is especially on the Right, that might sound like someone who says they believe in both a federal republic and theocracy. Well which one do you believe in, the federal republic or theocracy? Because they are two different things. But liberalism and federalism, actually go together. Because they both believe in the notions that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Especially big centralized power like in government, or in national multi-national corporations, to use as examples. Federalism, says that you have a Federal Government for a reason. To deal with national issues that affects everyone. And then let the states and localities deal with the issues in their jurisdictions.

Federalism, doesn't say that you shouldn't have a Federal Government and that there isn't much if any role for the Federal Government. This isn't a libertarian philosophy even though Libertarians tend to support federalism. It just lays out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. We need a national defense. we need a national foreign policy and diplomatic relations. We need to regulate interstate commerce when economic crimes are committed by the same people in multiple states, to use as examples. You obviously have to collect revenue for your Federal Government. You need to prosecute and police interstate crimes. The Feds, have to fight and prosecute terrorism. You need a national infrastructure system so you know that people can drive from state to state.

But that the states and localities need to be able to handle the issues that go on their own state. Dealing with local crime, education, building their own roads, dealing with their homelessness and poverty issues, collecting their own revenue, regulating their own economies, etc. Not that the Federal Government doesn't have a role here, but that they shouldn't be in charge here and telling the states and localities, 'this is what you need to do here.' Without providing the resources to pay for what the Feds want to do. Where the Feds can and should come in is helping communities especially struggling communities, deal with their issues. And not just the government's in these communities, but the private sector, non-profits to deal with poverty, lets say. So everyone has a real shot to overcome these issues which are a national concern.

Federalists, just say that government needs to be limited to exactly what we need it to do. And that includes the Federal Government especially in a huge country with all of our land and people which is what America is. And that power needs to be decentralized and spread out. Let Wisconsin and Colorado, to use as examples figure out how to educate their kids, fight crime, deal with poverty and others issues in their states. Leave the Feds to deal with issues that we must have it doing. Like foreign policy and defense, terrorism, but interstate commerce and crimes, regulating the environment and energy policy, would be other issues. As well as assist local communities and states both in the public and private communities, deal with tough issues that they're struggling to deal with.
Source:Harold Orndorff

American Thinker: Mark Musser- 'From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism'

Source:The Daily Review- Karl Marx and another guy, LOL!

Source:The Daily Review 

"The USSR died an ugly death in the 1990s. Yet, such an ugly political collapse proved to be very opportunistic for many communist leaders throughout the Soviet Union who hated the Marxist ideology that actually placed some restrictions on their behavior. Many of them privatized state companies to themselves and thus became the biggest mafia the world has ever seen. Putin, as a former KGB spymaster, is now in relative control of this mafia in spite of all the clans competing with one another from the Ukrainian Crimea to the Russian Far East."

From the American Thinker 

"Images in this video sourced are royalty free, creative commons, public domain from Wiki images & Pixabay." 

Source:Fact Myth- how much time do you have?

From Computing Forever

Equating liberalism with communism and Marxism, is like equating Christian-Conservatism with libertarianism. Why, because Marxism and liberalism, are very different. Marxism, Fa-Left, liberalism at best Center-Left, (really only in America) Center-Right in most of the rest of the developed world. Libertarianism and Christian-Conservatism, very different, but both on the Right.

Better comparisons here would be to compare liberalism and libertarianism, because they are both about liberty and the individual. But go about in different ways. Liberals, want to use a limited government to help create a society where everyone can thrive. Through things like education and infrastructure. Libertarians, practically see any government as a form of big government.

Marxism and Christian-Conservatism, are both different. For one, Marxists don't believe in any religion and religion would either be illegal, or under strict controls in a Marxist State. But they're both fascist in the sense that they both believe in their views and values so much that they believe any opposition would just be dangerous for society and shouldn't be tolerated. To go against a Marxist or Christian Theocratic State, should be subjected to death. Not that different if at all from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So if you're on the Right and lets with the Tea Party, or way over on the Right and believe America should all get into a national time machine and go back to 1915 or something and Modern America looks more alien to you than Latinos, or women not only voting, but working, if you're going to equate Marxists with Liberals, look out for yourself being compared with Theocrats and even Islamists. Who believe individualism is dangerous and freedom to assemble, protest, form oppositions, are immoral and everything else. That people being free to be themselves and live their own lives is as immoral as raping a kid or something. In a fascist's mind.

Marxists, are fascists who are so full of themselves who kiss the mirror every time they're in the bathroom. Who think anyone who disagrees with them should be shot or something. Liberals, believe in free speech. After all we created it, along with the U.S. Constitution. And we believe in liberty and individualism, which are the opposites of Marxists. Who believe they know best how everyone should live and think and that it is the job of government to take care of everyone for everyone. But Marxist superstate and a theocratic superstate, are very similar in the sense that they see individualism as dangerous. Which is why they both believe in big government so much.

The American Thinker: David Gayert: Kirsten Powers’s The Silencing: How The Left is Killing Free Speech

Source:The American Thinker- Fox News political analyst & author Kirsten Powers.

Source:The New Democrat

Again with the so-called The Left. As if The Left, is united on everything and everyone on The Left sees the world exactly the same way. The Left, similar to The Right, is very diverse. Both sides of the political spectrum, are made up of different political ideological factions. The Left, has Liberals from the Center-Left to Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Communists and Marxists on the Far-Left. The Right, has Conservatives and Conservative Libertarians, on the Center-Right. To Neoconservatives, Theocrats and other rightist statists on the Far-Right. Had Kirsten Powers said, “The Silencing: How The Far-Left is Trying to Kill Free Speech”, I would’ve seen that as a perfect title.

The Far-Left, lets calls them Socialists, Communists, perhaps even, but probably still Democratic, see a world where women are in charge. Because the Radical Feminists have taken over. Forget about equal protection and men and women being equal under law, because women are simply in charge. Because in a Radical Feminist world, women are simply superior than men. “And anyone who goes against this view that women are superior and not equal, is a sexist pig. Who doesn’t even deserved to be heard, let alone debated. That people are essentially stupid and need a big government to manage their economic and personal affairs for them. That Caucasians, are bigots generally, especially if they have an Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern background. Unless they share the worldview of the Far-left.”

That any critique of, or less than positive comments even if they are true, towards anyone who isn’t Caucasian, is somehow racist. Even if your comments are correct and are about religion and now about race, or ethnicity. As Bill Maher found out last fall when gave some editorials about Islam. I haven’t read the Kirsten Powers book, but if this is what she’s talking about, than she’s probably correct. But it’s not Liberals, as even Powers apparently suggested, but people who are illiberal. Who want to shut down the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world, the Ann Coulter’s, the Bill Maher’s even when he’s not with them. And there’s nothing liberal about these practices. Since the first value of liberalism if Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment. The right for people to speak and associate freely.

The American Thinker: Paul Kengor: 'From Communists to Progressives: The Left’s Takedown of Family and Marriage'

Source:Spero News- Paul Kengor's book, about The Left in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"As the Supreme Court considers rendering unto itself the right to redefine marriage -- that is, to arrogate to itself something heretofore reserved to the laws of nature and nature’s God -- it’s a good time to have something that liberals always insist we have: a conversation. And given liberals’ constant calls for “tolerance” and “diversity,” they ought to be willing to sit back and join us in a civil, healthy dialogue." 

From American Thinker

"Professor Paul Kengor, author of the sensational book, Dupes, speaks on how communists have manipulated progressives and why Barack Obama's relationship with Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis is so important. Kengor credits America's Survival, Inc. for telling the truth about Obama's communist mentor and obtaining Davis's 600-page FBI file."

From USA Survival

Source:USA Survival- Paul Kengor, at the National Press Club in Washington.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law even, does it say the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason why states started passing same-sex marriage bans in the last ten years or so, as some other states legalized same-sex marriage, because they didn’t have a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Until the 1960s, women were supposed to stay at home and not work outside of the house and raise her kids. While the husband/father worked and paid the bills. That was how parenthood was looked at and unofficially defined. Man works and pays the bills. Woman stays home and raises the family. That was the cultural definitions of the roles for parents in America, up until the mid or late 1960s. 

But nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law did it say that was how it was supposed to be by law. Back then, men assumed they would be working and getting married and having kids with that woman. And working to pay the bills so their kids could have a better life. As their wife stayed home and raised their kids.

My point is, that just because something has been done for a very long time and has become the societal norm, doesn’t mean that is how it should always be. And that people from different generation’s and era’s can adapt to meet the challenges of their era’s and live accordingly. This is just the main difference between a Liberal such as myself and a Religious-Conservative. 

The Liberal believes the individual should be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. The Religious-Conservative, or the Traditional Values Conservative, believes: “This is how things are done and this is how they’ve always been done. And when you move away from that, you’re the morality and character of the country.”

It’s just until the last thirty-years or so that gays male and female felt the freedom to be who they are in public and private. And they’ve always only represented at best 5-10% of the American population and back then probably less than that, because so many gays lived in the closet and weren’t counted as a result. So the idea of same-sex marriage for gays was simply not on the map. Especially since the idea of homosexuality seem weird and even immoral to so many Americans. 

But as a country moves along and is exposed to people other than themselves and gets to learn about other people than themselves, they become more tolerant. And learn that people of other backgrounds are people just like them. In the sense that they want and believe in similar things, but perhaps look, talk and act differently. But aren’t good, or bad simply because of who they are.

America, has become that true liberal democracy for all Americans. Where we all now feel and have the freedom to be ourselves. And not looked down upon, or punished by law simply because of who we are. So now homosexuality is not only considered not that big of a deal in the sense of that person is not good or bad, simply because they are gay. And if they’re not hurting anyone, so what when it comes to who they’re attracted to and how they live their lives. Which is now has become sort of the consensus attitude about gays in America. “And if they want to get married, by all means. Their marriage doesn’t affect my marriage.” Which has become the majority position when it comes to same-sex marriage in America.

The American Thinker: Robert Curry: Liberals Aren't Liberal

Source:The New Democrat   

If you look at the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, you'll see if that the First Amendment is Freedom of Speech. Now what is more liberal than the right to speak freely and add to that the constitutional right to speak freely. That is what liberalism is really based on. Freedom of speech and assembly, the right for the individual to live freely. Liberal and liberty go so well together which is why they sound similar because liberal is based off of liberty. Liberty for the individual, not liberty for government to manage the individual's lives.

If you look at this whole debate about Bill Maher and his opinions on religion and Islam in general and keep in mind Bill Maher is a real Atheist, you'll know who the real Liberals are and the people who just call themselves Liberals and who the media calls Liberals. Because the Liberals in this debate and I'm one of them are defending free speech and Bill Maher's right to free speak freely. And not be censored because political correctness fascists and perhaps some Muslims as well are offended about what Maher has to say about a non-Christian or Jewish religion.

The free speech aspect is just one example of the Liberal vs. the non-Liberal on the Left in America. The Liberals wants everyone the entire country to have freedom over their own lives. Not just people born to money or from the South or from rural America or who are Christian or who are Anglo. But everyone including the groups I just mentioned that tend to be Republican. The non-Liberal the statist on the Left wants government to have the power to manage our lives for us. Because he or she believes we are too stupid to make our decisions for ourselves.

When it comes to the Left whether it is the center-left or the rest of the Left, it is about role of government. And the same thing on the Right, but on the Left the further you go, the more government especially Federal Government you want both economically and even to a certain extent socially. And if you are on the far-left, you want a hell of a lot of government to manage people's lives for them. But if you are on the center-left where I am, it is not small government you advocate for. But a limited government  that is not so big that it discourages individual freedom, responsibility and initiative. Just big enough to do for us what we need it to including helping people in need help themselves. 

The American Thinker: Selyn Duke: Libertarian Folly": Why Everybody is a Social-Issues Voter

Source:The New Democrat

At some point the Republican Party at least the leadership and establishment are going to have to figure out if they believe in individual freedom which is the freedom for individuals to live individually, (make sense don't it) the freedom of self-determination and be able to make your own decisions in life, or do they just like talking about individual freedom to try to convince Independents that is what they believe. As they are working to get government more involved in our personal affairs and have less freedom.

Because Americans more and more everyday are deciding that they truly want individual freedom both economic and personal and not have government interfering into our lives and instead limit government to doing what we need it to do for us. Which gets to things like protecting the innocent from predators who would hurt the innocent. Financing infrastructure and making sure that everyone has a shot at getting themselves a good education and a few other things. But what limited government is truly about.

And if Republicans decide to sound like politicians and say what they want people to hear, but govern the way they want to and those things are different than they will continue to lose voters in this country. Especially young Americans and minorities as big government becomes even less unpopular in this country from either an economic or personal perspective. And the Republican Party will be left to only their rural Anglo-Saxon Protestant male base as everyone else are either Democrats or Independents living where most of the country lives in urban and suburban America.

That is my larger point. To Selyn Duke's article in the American Thinker today as far as what he wrote. He made the classic mistake that people on the fringe either Right or Left do. Which is taking political beliefs to the extreme to make them look like something that they aren't. He compared people who believe in legalizing same-sex-marriage as people "who must believe in pedophilia as well". As if there is any real or solid movement in America that believes pedophilia is a good thing to begin with and should be legalize. Or that "if you believe in personal choice you believe the KKK has a right to commit terrorists acts." Its the KKK's choice to do those things right?

Personal choice is not the right to hurt innocent people as much as Neoconservatives and the Christian Right claims that it is. Personal choice is exactly that, personal the ability to make their own decisions regarding their own lives. Not the right to infringe on others freedom. Whether it is theft, robbery, assault, murder, rape go down the line. Personal choice is a big part of individual freedom and Republicans are going to have to figure out if they really believe in individual freedom or not. And if they decide they don't, they put their party in serious jeopardy with a lot of the country.

American Thinker: Scott Mayer: Goldwater 2.0 & Smart Conservatives

Source:The New Democrat 

I'm not sure what Scott Mayer means by "Smart Conservative" and I read his entire post on the American Thinker. So I'll give you my own interpretation of what a Smart Conservative is. It would be a real Conservative classical Conservative if you will. Not someone who bashes big government with one hand as they are trying to expand it on the other hand. Like with President George W. Bush in the early 2000s with No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and later the Medicare prescription drug expansion which by the way wasn't paid for.

Or today's so-called Conservatives who sound like Ron Paul when it comes to the welfare state and putting down government involvement in the economy. While at the same time wanting to expand government when it comes to the Federal Government regulating marriage to prevent gays from getting married. Or trying to outlaw pornography from the federal level. Or trying to keep the failed War on Drugs alive at the federal level. Representative Michelle Bachmann (thank God she's leaving Congress at the end of this year) comes to mind as a phony Conservative.

Similar to Ronald Reagan Barry Goldwater suffers from a case of cherry picker's disease. People who claim to love the man and say they are that type of Republican or Conservative. But only based that love and affection on a handful of issues and policies. They cherry pick what they love about them and ignore their disagreements with them on issues they disagree on. Or even worst try to convince people that their political idols don't actually believe in what they believed.

The fact is Barry Goldwater doesn't represent the Republican Party of today. But at best a wing of the party the conservative libertarian wing of the party that may be strong enough to nominate their first Republican presidential candidate since 1964 in 2016. And of course I'm thinking of Senator Rand Paul and you see other Conservative Libertarians in Congress along with Senator Paul like Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Jeff Flake, Representative Justin Amash and Representative Walter Jones who represent this wing of the party in Congress as well.

But Barry Goldwater even though he probably is the father of the modern conservatism today and back then that type of conservatism is a classical form of it. The real thing which is how I would put it that truly believes in limited government and federalism and just doesn't cherry pick where they support limited government based on things they like and dislike. But believes the individual and states should be making of the decisions about their own affairs when it comes to both domestic and personal issues. Instead of those key and personal decisions being micro-managed from Washington.

The American Thinker: Mary Anne Marcella: The Death of America'

Source:The New Democrat

This post is somewhat challenging because it is going to be two parts. That by itself is not challenging, but one part is going to sound and be pretty negative and partisan. And the other part is going to be pretty positive and hopefully unifying and uplifting about why we are Americans and what brings us together. Which generally has nothing to do with religion, or ethnic or racial heritage, or the country from which our ancestors came. But the national values that we share as Americans.

The negative part first. There are those a major, but seriously shrinking faction on the Right people who I call Traditional Values Conservatives. Neoconservatives would be more accurate from a political point of view, but certainly conservative in a cultural standpoint in the sense that they want to conserve their way of life and how they grew and how America looked the way up until let's say the mid 1960s or so. And then of course went through dramatic national changes.

Traditional Values believers believe the country as it has become more diverse across the national spectrum and more tolerant of people who are not like them again across the national spectrum and more tolerant of different lifestyles, that the country as a result has been going downhill ever since culturally and politically. That their Protestant Anglo-Saxon way of life which tends to be deeply routed in the South and rural parts of America outside of the South is under attacked as there are now a lot less of them. And a lot more Americans of other racial, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

What the Neo-Right calls "Traditional America" starts with the founding of our Federal Republic that grants so many constitutional and individual rights to Americans regardless of their racial, ethnic, religious or cultural background. But Neoconservatives believe those rights are just for them. "Religious freedom doesn't include Muslims because Islam is not a real religion". Would be an example of their bigotry. But that would be the modern version of it to go along with how they feel about "homosexuals are people who are immoral and not deserving the same rights as straights. Latinos are Un-American and not deserving the same rights and do not deserve to be in America".

I could include how our Founding Americans felt about Africans and the African slave trade in America. "Africans are not people and as a result should be treated like animals or property". But that might be to harsh for some to hear. The problem that the Neo-Right has had in America is they've lost almost every cultural battle this country has fought in the Cultural War mostly through the court system and is a big reason why we are so diverse as a country to go along with our immigration system. That we take people from all over the world regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.

Now for the positive side. One of the things that makes America exceptional and yes I do believe in American Exceptionalism is that unlike most European and Asian countries America is not dominated by one race, ethnicity, religion or culture. And yet post Civil War and civil rights movement we've managed to live pretty well together as one country that is at least physically still together. Sure there are a tone of things that divide us, but generally not relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or even sexuality. What tends to divide us has to do with economic and educational status. To go along with political ideology, lifestyle choices and social status.

What brings Americans together tends to deal with our national values that most Americans share. The beliefs in individual freedom both economic and personal. Our beliefs in the Constitution and at least most of that document, not parts that get cherry picked for partisan political reasons. Our beliefs in freedom to go along with responsibility and tolerance of other Americans who don't share their political, cultural or religious beliefs. Our beliefs in education, opportunity, helping those in need. That is the only way a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people or so that is as racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse can function as one country without separating into several different new countries.

The American Thinker: Christopher Chantrill: 'Liberals Digging Their Political Graves'

Source:The New Democrat

Richard Nixon was a brilliant political strategist, whatever else you may think of the man.  In the late 1960s, he could see the country moving politically. The Democratic Party was moving left and away from the Confederate States, making an opening for the Republican Party to come back to power through the Confederate States.  His so-called, "Southern Strategy," was the result and the Republican Party is living with its consequences today.

Chris Cantrill, on the other hand, is not a brilliant political strategist nor even a reliable political reporter.  Reading an article by him on liberalism is like listening to an average American cab driver give a lecture on ancient Japanese history. This person does not know what they are talking about.

I don't like making my posts completely personal, so I'll critique Cantrill's article from here on. He says that Liberals aren't interested in creating a just society or a utopia but are interested only in power and elimination of opposition, which would result in a fascist state.  Once this is accomplished, they might work to create that utopian paradise.

The power that Liberals truly want is power to the people, creating an environment where everyone has power over their own lives, including the ability to vote for candidates across the political spectrum. Liberals also want freedom of expression.

Nixon acquired the label, "Tricky Dick," because of his relentlessly unscrupulous drive to eliminate all political opposition.  We see this factor in modern Republican tactics which are devoid of fact and reason. While decrying big government they call for big brother to constrain what people can do in the privacy of their own homes.

Cantrill's article was one of the dumbest that I've ever read.  It was full of falsehoods, if not damned lies.  We still have too many Americans who are dumb enough to believe this garbage, which Cantrill was counting on and why I felt the need to respond to it.

These overly partisan far-rightists are smart enough to know that the country is moving politically.  It is becoming more liberal everyday as the electorate becomes better educated.  The X and Y generations are perfect examples of this and, when the next generation starts going to college, it will just continue. Younger Americans now and, even more, middle aged Americans simply want control over their personal and economic affairs.  They do not want big government telling them how to live.  The far-right tries to combat this movement by making up garbage and saying, "This is why you shouldn't be a Liberal."

The American Thinker: Rick Moran: Can Stephen Colbert be Funny Without Mocking Right-Wingers?

Source:The New Democrat

There's been this latest complaint, well not really a late complaint, it goes back to at least the 1960s, from the American Right that the American media, especially the entertainment industry, don't like right-wingers and love to make fun of them. With the right not really having their own medium (Why not?  Do they not have enough money?) to take on the left, they feel naked and defenseless. They are correct that Hollywood and others like to make fun of right-wingers but it is a special section of the right-wing that they tend to go after.  I'll get into that later.  They are wrong when they say that the right doesn't have a way to make fun of the left.

I read the libertarian magazine, Reason, everyday.  I also look at their think tank, Reason Foundation, and their YouTube channel, everyday.  They make fun of leftists almost everyday with constant satires about big government leftists and dumb leftists. But a certain faction of the right doesn't like Reason because they go after big government dumbies on the right as well, making dumb people from both political wings look pretty silly.

This blog makes fun of big government dumbies, both left and right, because The New Democrat is simply anti-big government.  It doesn't want government trying to control American lives, personally or economically.  The New Democrat and Reason do not go after everyone on the left and right, only the ignorant people who believe that they know best how Americans should live their lives.  A certain faction on the right hates that. Which faction do you think that might be?

Could it be the American far-right, the christian right and neoconservatives in general, who really weren't born, politically, until the 1960s?  The far right sees themselves as the "Heartland of America,"  as a Chevrolet commercial (or is that "Heartbeat of America").  They still live in the Leave it to Beaver 1950s where dad went to work, mom stayed at home and took care of the kids and house,  and gays were locked in the closet.  African-Americans were, technically, not slaves anymore but they existed only to serve Caucasians, without full American citizenship.

All of early TV and everything else that came from Hollywood in this era represented this 1950s American way of life.  Since then, the country has aged sixty years, give or take a few, but the so-called moral majority coalition has not matured accordingly.  They are stuck in a Twilight Zone episode and are confused by how much the country has changed.  They want to go back in time.

The American national media, especially the entertainment industry, don't so much make fun of conservatives as they make fun of the so-called traditional values coalition that is trying put America into a time machine and take it back to the 1950s.  The christian right  looks down on Americans and calls them immoral if they are gay or live with their romantic partners before marriage.  They consider sex before marriage, watching pornography, smoking pot and, perhaps, tobacco, and drinking alcohol sins as well.  These people get made fun of because they are stuck in a Twilight Zone called Modern America and haven't figured out how to get back to real time. 

The American Thinker: Brad Lips: A Populist Libertarian Youth Movement?

Source:The New Democrat

As a member of Gen-X, I see two growing movements in American politics, both anti-big government. On the right, the young libertarians seem to be anti-government all together.  Both young liberals and young libertarians want the freedom to live their own lives and make their own economic and social  decisions without interference from big brother.

The polling data show that young adults are now voting Democratic overwhelmingly but they aren't voting in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.  In a lot of cases, they are voting against Republicans whom they see as intolerant.  They vote for Democrats whom they see as tolerant and liberal on social issues and not seeking to expand the Federal government and raise taxes.  This is a huge opportunity for the Democratic Party to advance Jack Kennedy's vision of an America with economic and personal freedom for all.

The Republican Party also has an opportunity, now, with the young libertarians on the right, if they can ever stop shooting themselves in the foot (or run out of toes) and divorce themselves from the Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives.   It should be easy for them to convince the electorate that they  hate big government and don't want to expand it or raise taxes.  It will be much more difficult for them to convince the electorate that they believe that Americans should have the freedom to manage their own lives.

The capture of the GOP by the right-to-life movement indicates a strong tendency toward theocracy in which the religious principles of a few constrain the behavior of all.  The party seems hell-bent on imposing Christian sharia on America.  To be competitive for the youth vote, the GOP will have to move toward a libertarian philosophy and say, "No," to the Neo-Right.  They could then become a more truly conservative party that would be competitive with the Democrats for young voters.

The future of America is young people who build their own businesses and work for new businesses that look much different from American businesses of the past.  They want the freedom to run their own business and personal affairs.  The Democratic Party and Barack Obama have already figured that out. The Republican Party hasn't gotten the message yet and is still nominating people who can't get elected outside of the Bible Belt and rural America.  They need to get this message and bring in the libertarians, if they want to stay in business.  If they don't, the Democratic Party will end up governing most of the country.

Source:Young Americans For Liberty

The American Thinker: Trevor Thomas: Bill Maher, High Priest

Source:The New Democrat

This subject is the perfect example of why we still need the Fourth Amendment our Right to Privacy in America. Because imagine if the Religious-Right or the Far-Right in general was in charge in the United States. And we didn’t have the Right to Privacy and how much of their big government agenda they would be able to get through. And being able to outlaw any type of behavior even among consenting adults that isn’t hurting anyone. Without the United States Constitution to stop them.

Morality it get’s to what is your position of morality. For me it is about good behavior and how we treat each other. And for me moral behavior would be to treat people the way you want to be treated. Most of us are good people so we would treat people the way we want them to treat us. Unless we simply do not like them and could care less what they think of us or how they would treat us in response. But even with people like that, we generally do not intentionally hurt people especially if we have better things to do. And are good productive people who aren’t going to be worried about what some jerk is doing.

The liberal tradition of morality is about how we treat each other as people. But even as kids we tend to be raised regardless of our parents ideology to treat people well the way we would want to be treated. And we tend to learn these things as kids and that is how we are able to make friends and work with other people. Because we treat people well and in a moral way and we do not hurt people intentionally. Especially if they are innocent people.

But if you are on the Religious-Right or the Far-Right in general, morality is not just about how we treat each other, but how we live our own lives as individuals. How we live individually and even if we aren’t hurting anyone, even ourselves we could be viewed by the Far-Right as either immoral or involved in immoral behavior when it comes to activities they disapprove. Homosexuality, adultery, gambling, drinking, smoking, using illegal drugs, pornography, are just some of the examples of activities that the Far-Right would like to outlaw in the United States. Because they see these things as immoral.

If you are a Liberal you believe that government should mind their own business. And allow the people to mind their business. Instead of government getting in the way and telling free adults how they should live their own lives. But for the Religious-Right there is no such thing as individual behavior at least as it relates to personal issues and that all of these things are the public’s business meaning government’s, in order to have a moral code that protects everyone even from themselves.

Peter Skurkiss: 'Smoking and Individual Liberty'

Source:Temple News- Americans have the individual right to smoke.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This April, Temple University President Richard Englert announced that United States campuses would be tobacco-free by July 1, banning all tobacco use, including cigarettes, Juuls and other vaping products on any of Temple’s campuses, he wrote in an email to the Temple community."  

From Temple News 

"This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the date when the surgeon general at long last admitted that smoking was a clear and present health hazard (1), particularly as it relates to lung cancer. And even though great strides have been made against smoking since then, much more needs to be done. More than 400,000 Americans still die prematurely each year from smoking."

Source:American Thinker- is a populist, right-wing publication.

From the American Thinker 

"Say "tobacco farming" and people usually think of leafy fields in the south and southeast. But Connecticut farmers have been raising a particular type of tobacco for more than a century."  

Source:America's Heartland- talking about tobacco farming.

From America's Heartland 

What this attractive woman in this photo is doing is obviously smoking tobacco. Not a choice I would make as a free American, but it's her lungs and as long as people want to grow and sell tobacco in this country, and Americans want to smoke, or at least enough to keep tobacco in business, we're going to have a tobacco country. It's not what we do to ourselves that government should be prohibiting or regulating, but how we interact with each other. 

Just when I thought the American Thinker couldn’t be more religious-authoritarian and big government enough, I read an article on their blog today from writer Peter Skurkiss who I’m sure means well, but a lot of bad things come from good intentions. To quote the great Professor Milton Friedman: "The road to hell was paved with good intentions." Which sums up most of the big government prohibition proposals in the same of morality and social security. 

The Peter Skursiss plan to outlaw tobacco in the United States is a perfect example of that. And why would we do it now when first of all it is already legal. Second, we already tax and regulate the hell out of it and perhaps we should do even more short of outlawing it. Like moving the legal age from eighteen to twenty-one like alcohol. But third, smoking has already come down so far in this country from what we’ve already are doing right now to it.

Look, if we as a society do not like the actions others take and primarily the reasons for that is because we do not want to pay for their mistakes, remember a lot of America is about our economy and money, so if we do not want to pay for others mistakes, gee here’s an idea: let’s stop doing that. And let stupid people pay for their stupid mistakes instead. 

We should not just tax tobacco, but tax it to the point that smokers will have a decision to make: “Do I really want to spend so much money on a product that could kill me?” But second to transfer that tax revenue to the health care that smokers will need to pay for their smoking.

Alcohol prohibition didn’t work, the War on Drugs has failed. Just look at all the ruined lives from it as a result. Like people not being able to get good legal jobs because of a drug conviction. Even though they didn’t actually hurt anybody. Same thing would happen with tobacco prohibition. Arresting people for what they do to themselves and overflowing and already overcrowded criminal justice system.

American Thinker: Daniel Payne: 'Pro-Choice Only Goes So Far'

Source:American Thinker- is a let's say new-right, or populist-right publication.

"The media's relative radio silence concerning Kermit Gosnell's baby butchery is well-documented at this point, so it's hardly worth mentioning that it will likely continue to be underreported and undercared about by most Americans. Yet still, another peek into the world of abortion rights is merited, if only to examine the neurotic philosophy of the "pro-choice" lobby.

In Arkansas, an anti-abortion law has outlawed the procedure after twelve weeks of pregnancy, which has resulted in two doctors bringing a lawsuit against the state. The Arkansas chapter of the ACLU denounced the law and concurrently announced: "We may not all agree about abortion, but we can all agree that this complex and personal decision should be made by a woman, her family and her doctor, not politicians."

Actually, the crux of people not agreeing about abortion rests entirely on whether or not the decision should be left to individuals or to the law, rendering the ACLU's grand declaration somewhat paradoxical. At any rate, when it comes to "complex and personal decisions," the ACLU is, to say the least, conflicted.

"ACLU Welcomes Health Care Decision," read one of the organization's press releases last year. Which health care decision was that? Nothing too big or consequential, just the Supreme Court's upholding of the Affordable Care Act. You know, the law that takes a massive amount of "complex and personal decisions" away from everyone -- women, families, doctors, you name it. Obamacare is one of the most sweeping anti-choice laws of the past fifty years, but the ACLU "welcomed" it. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

It is. President Obama, for one, is also woefully confused when it comes to the definition of choice. He has, of course, been a longtime supporter of abortion rights, affirming his steadfast commitment to a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Concerning abortion, that is. When it comes to drugs, he's remarkably less enthusiastic about rights, or choices, or bodily sovereignty; the grossly expensive, mass-incarcerating War on Drugs has continued apace under his wise leadership. So it's all about choice, until it's a choice concerning something of which the president disapproves, even if it's something he himself did in moments of youthful indulgence." 

From the American Thinker 

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate either. Anyone who reads this blog, knows I'm not just pro-choice on abortion, but pro-choice on a helluva lot issues, just as long as it doesn't involve one person using their freedom to hurt an innocent person. The only other thing I would say about abortion here is that it's generally not about whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice. It's about whether someone is pro-choice on abortion, or thinks abortion should be illegal in America all together, except perhaps for some rare exceptions. 

I believe what Daniel Payne is arguing in his American Thinker article, is that a lot of supporters of abortion rights in America, like to call themselves pro-choice. But the fact is that they're not very pro-choice at all. Sure, on abortion and perhaps women's health care in general and sexuality for gays. But on a whole issues and he used narcotics as one, so-called pro-choice supporters in America are actually anti-choice and pro-state. 

The anti-choice-left, are not just anti-choice on issues like marijuana, but gambling, school choice, and even pornography, when you look at the militant wing of the feminist-left and if you look at someone of the nanny state debates from last year, soft drinks and junk food. And Mr. Payne used President Obama and his advancement of the so-called War On Drugs, as his case in point. And as someone who voted for Barack Obama twice for President, I completely agree with Mr. Payne on that.

You can also see this post on WordPress.