Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

Source:Reason Magazine- Attacks on free speech. 

Source:The New Democrat

I guess where I would disagree is with the title of the Reason piece where they say, "free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives." Implying that free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives, that it is from Liberals. I argue that free speech is not in danger from either of the center's of American politics the Center-Right and Center Left, Conservatives and Liberals, but that's in danger from the fringes of American politics.

Nationalist-Tribalist- Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right, who are offended by American culture and would like to see big government come in and restrict what we can see on TV and in pop culture generally. And anyone who opposes Donald Trump and his supporters are traitors ( from their perspective ) and therefor not serving of the same free speech rights as people who support Donald Trump and come from the Christian-Right Nationalist wing in and outside of the Republican Party.

And Socialists in some cases democratic but when you look at groups like ANTIFA and other self-described Communists in America, people who believe that right-wingers don't have free speech rights in America because what they say is offensive and they simply don't like what the Right ( especially Far-Right ) has to say and therefor should be shut down and silenced whenever they speak. Whenever one of these right-wingers especially Far-Rightist's like Ann Coulter tries to give a speech, you'll see Far-Left groups show up and protest her or someone else on the Far-Right and try to shut her down and shut her up. When one of these people writes a book, they'll protest bookstores and try to boycott them so the author can't sell their book.

As an actual Liberal, not a Libertarian, or Civil Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but as an actual real-life Liberal who doesn't want big government trying to manage our personal and economic affairs for us including what we say to each other and doesn't want a national babysitter or nanny state, but a real Liberal in the real sense as someone who believe in liberal values like liberal democracy and the individual rights that Liberals actually support, I believe in free speech period. Whether it comes to pornography and other forms of adult entertainment that the Christian-Right claims to hate and use to view ( pre-Donald Trump ) as a national threat to our security and morality. Or critical or even offensive speech towards minority groups or anyone else in America that the Far-Right hates.

If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech. Which is sort of like saying if someone believes in God, they believe in God, but my point is that if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech for everyone and not just people that you tend to agree with. Like that Michael Douglas line from The American President, that America is hard and you have to want it bad because it's going to come after you. Because it's a society where you have the right to say and believe whatever you want and those rights will be defended to the hilt. But that people who tend disagree with you have the exact same constitutional First Amendment free speech rights as you do. And free speech is better and America is better when we fight for the free speech rights as others the same way that we fight for our own and the people who we tend to agree with.
Source:Reason Magazine

Reason Magazine: Peter Suderman: 'Donald Trump's Vladimir Putin Summit Is Another Reminder He Prefers Dictators To Democratic Leaders'

Source:Reason Magazine- President Donald Trump & President Vladimir Putin, meeting in Helsinki, Finland. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Among the most consistent characteristics of Donald Trump's worldview is his admiration for dictators, authoritarians, and political strongmen—not in spite of their most thuggish tactics, but because of them.

Trump often appears more comfortable in their company, and with their style of politics, than with the leaders of liberal democracies. This aspect of his personality was on display again today in his joint press conference with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

At the press conference, Trump refused to acknowledge Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. That Russia interfered is now well-documented in both a report by Republican lawmakers and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives. Allowing that Russia interfered in the election is not equivalent to saying that Russia's actions swung the election in favor of Trump, but the president cannot seem to distinguish between the two." 

From Reason Magazine 

"Speaking following their bilateral meeting in Finland, U.S. President Donald Trump said he trusts Vladimir Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election before bringing up Hillary Clinton's missing emails."

Source: Global News- President Donald Trump, who is supposed to be President of the United States and not working for the Russian Federation.

From Global News

Source: The Australian- Vlad & Don chatting 

Donald Trump, likes to portray himself as this big guy from Queens New York who doesn't take any junk ( to put it lightly ) from anyone and never gets pushed around. He always shows strength and toughness and is never soft. That is the reputation that he wanted to have in his 45 plus years in business and the reputation that he wants to have now as a politician. Except that in his heart he's basically just a bully. Trump, is a guy who'll be as tough as he possibly can against someone he says as a pushover, but if the person has any strength at all, he'll fall back.

If President Trump, believes he can push someone around and sees that person as weak, he has no problem attacking them verbally, because he doesn't believe that person can defend them self, but if that person fights back like Hillary Clinton or someone else, he backs down. Or if he views someone as tough like a Vladimir Putin, he'll be as nice as he possibly can even going as far as appeasing that person to make them feel as good as possible. He'll make our democratic allies in Canada and Europe, look like the enemy and the authoritarian dictators look like our friends.

Donald Trump, is the ultimate flatterer to people he views as tough and respects, who'll tell someone who just made them a peanut butter sandwich that is the best sandwich that he's ever eaten or the best meal he's ever had, even if the peanut butter sandwich only came with crackers and perhaps water and not even milk, he'll try to convince the person that he sees as tough as serving them the best meal he's ever had. Forget about those great steak dinner and other meals that he's had in New York or those great quarter pounders that he's had on his own airplane, the peanut butter sandwich is the best thing he's ever eaten, which is what he would want that person to believe.

Trump, doesn't care if the people he likes and respects are horrible people, just as long as he likes and respects them and he feels they like and respect him. If Donald Trump felt something he liked about Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, or any other mass murderer you want to name in world history, he'll be nice to that person regardless of what that person has done with their life or to other people. It's not about defending or promoting America or even the people who voted for him with Donald Trump, but defending and promoting Donald Trump the man. Or I would argue Donald Trump the lack of a man who doesn't have the guts ( to put it mildly ) to take on evil dictators. Even though he literally is the most powerful man in the world.

30, 40, 50, years ago Far-Leftist Democrats the George McGovern's of the world and even to a certain extent the Ted Kennedy's of the world, even though he moderated his politics at least on national security and foreign policy by the late 1980s or so, were seen as soft and people who appease dictators around the world especially Communists dictators. Before the McGovern's it was the Henry Wallace's of the world who had this reputation and now it would be the Dennis Kucinich's of the world from the last 10-15 years when he was in the House. And for good reasons because they were soft on authoritarians and authoritarianism and in some cases would even deny the obvious brutality that would go on in those countries that would be coming from the government's there.

I only mention this because if any major national Democrat who was looking at running for president or seeking a Democratic leadership post in Congress today the Elizabeth Warren's, Bernie Sanders of the world, said half or even a quarter of the nice things that President Trump has said about President Vladimir Putin, President Kim Jong-Un of the Communist Republic of Korea, President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China, President Rodrigo Duterte of Philippines, they would be seen as American traitors and as treasonous. If Hillary Clinton won the presidential election in 2016 and had said a quarter or half of the nice things that President Trump has said about these dictators, House Republicans would be calling for her impeachment immediately. But for some reason Donald Trump gets a pass from the same people who would be looking to arrest and lockup Democrats for doing the exact same things.

Living in America now is like being on a Twilight Zone episode or just living in The Twilight Zone, where you now have a Republican President who likes dictators and authoritarianism and who takes the word of President Vladimir Putin from the Russian Federation, who is a authoritarian right-wing Nationalist who locks up and even murders journalists and politicians simply for opposing him, over the word of the American intelligence community people he appointed to run those agencies who were confirmed by the U.S. Senate in most cases overwhelmingly. Career intelligence and national security professionals who run those agencies. The truth and evidence be dammed with President Donald Trump, if it doesn't backup up his spin and propaganda and helps him politically. That's the state of the Republican Party and American politics right now.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Nadine Strossen- 'Fight Hate Speech With More Speech, Not Censorship'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Nadine Strossen.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Reason’s Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the importance of free speech.”

From Reason Magazine 

"The updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. As "hate speech" has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many

countries, this book shows that "hate speech" are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates worldwide maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism." 

Source: NPR News- Good book

From Amazon

To paraphrase USA Today political columnist and CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers, I'm a free speech nut. Meaning I don't put many limits on what free Americans can say about anything in America or anywhere else. Other than what Nadine Strossen said in this interview where she says you can't incite violence and call for harm against personal property and individuals. You can't falsely accuse someone without consequences. You can't harass someone and leave horrible messages on their phone without consequences, or get in their face after the individual made it clear to you that they don't want to talk to you and have already moved to get away from you. You're free to yell at that person as they move away from you, but you can't try to force anyone to listen to what you have to say about them or anyone else.

But when you live in a liberal democracy and you know what liberal democracy is actually about, you know you're going to be living in a country where some people there at least aren't very bright. Perhaps they flunked out of junior high, perhaps they're one beer short of a keg, got kicked out of every mental institution that tried to help them or simply simply escaped from every mental institution known to man. They're people out there that are simply stupid or crazy, or a combination of those things and view some humans as animals that deserved to be treated as such. Or that women should be slaves to men, at least Caucasian men. Or gays are really just mental patients, or perhaps don't even deserve to be alive. You're going to be sharing a free society with people who believe that only they the hateful nuts, deserve to live in freedom.

Americans simply have the right to make assholes out of themselves, except for the exceptions I've already laid out and when you live in a country of 320 million people you're going to have a lot of assholes. Especially when that country is a liberal democracy and broader free society. The way you combat hate speech is the same way you combat ignorance which is through education. You teach the ignorant or at least try to and explain why the asshole is an asshole and has views that could have only been dreamed up in the greatest pot fantasy in the history of the universe. And is so out-of-touch with reality that they live in a different universe mentally.

I'm in the camp that I'll fight to death every American's right to free speech even if I disagree with it and will fight to the death to preserve some asshole's right to free speech, because I don't want some other asshole ( especially elected assholes ) trying to shut me up either civilly or through government force when I say something that may tend to offend someone else. Once you pass laws that offensive speech is now illegal, you've just created a new highway of potential new offensive speech laws that now anyone could create or use to fight free speech that they disagree with. Which could include laws passed against racial and ethnic minorities when they say offensive things and do offensive things against majorities in America. Which is something the so-called political correctness warriors on the Far-Left haven't thought through or even considered which is political correctness laws could be used against them. Free speech and education, are always the answers to ignorance. 

Reason Magazine: Andrew Heaton: '13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore'

Source:Reason Magazine- Judge Roy Moore & this guy- I prefer this guy.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Even if you disregard the nine women accusing Roy Moore of sexual assault, there are plenty of reasons to despise him." 

From Reason Magazine

Just to be clear, I don't hate anyone that I don't personally know. Other than Adolph Hitler and murderous racist tyrants like that. And Roy Moore is obviously a bad guy and not particularly bright apparently and how he ever got a law degree I believe deserves an investigation into the school that he graduated from. I mean, here's a man who doesn't even believe in the U.S. Constitution and yet somehow becomes a judge in America. You would think even Alabama would want judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore is a man who claims to be a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian and yet he can't even accurately quote or interpret the Bible. Claiming that homosexuality is not only a sin, but that people who could be arrested if caught doing homosexuality activity. Saying that is what God would want. Even though Roy Moore as never even met, heard or read anything that this supposed God has ever said. Which would put him in club of roughly 320 million members and that is just in America alone. The American club for people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said is so full and not big enough for the entire world of people who've never met, talked to, or has read anything that God has ever said. And yet Roy Moore who puts his fundamentalist, made up frankly interpretation of the Bible, over the U.S. Constitution.

Can't label Roy Moore a so-called Constitutional Conservative either or big believer in rule of law. But only because he isn't and doesn't believe in rule of law. Not because I'm putting the man down or something, or at least anymore than he deserves. Because Moore only believes in enforcing laws that he believes in and agrees with. Which is a Christmas gift from Santa Clause to every Anarchist who has ever lived. 

Imagine if everyone else and not just Roy Moore only had to follow laws that they agree with. You don't think there would be some spike in crime do you? And and far as Constitutional Conservative. Roy Moore being quoted as believing in eliminating only half of our constitutional amendments going from 11-20. Including the amendment that eliminated slavery. Where's the constitutional conservatism there? That is not conserving, but eliminating.

How about church and state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof. Well, it's a good thing that Roy Moore won't be going to Congress now for lots of reasons, but a big one being that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. And perhaps would work as a senator to try to disobey the First Amendment, because again he doesn't agree with it, so he doesn't believe he should have to follow it. Roy Moore is the classic case of not ready for prime time and represents someone who simply doesn't have the judgment and knowledge to be serving in public office, at least not Federal office.

I realize its easy to put down and critique someone who just lost a huge Senate seat in the state of Alabama, who also just happens to be a Republican and being the first Republican to lose an Alabama Senate seat in a generation and this these are embarrassing enough for even a so-called Republican who doesn't even believe in the republic and yet he calls himself a Republican, which I guess is a different story. 

Roy Moore is a Christian-Theocrat ideologically, not a Conservative Republican or Constitutional Conservative, which is actually very different. But Roy Moore should be the lesson and example of what not to do and be if you're a Republican and even a Bible Belt Republican and a lesson for the Republican Party even in the Bible Belt. And if they learn this lesson they can avoid further embarrassments in the future.

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- 'Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate'

Source:Reason Magazine- John Stossel on the author the Far-Left loves to hate.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Not everyone will celebrate Atlas Shrugged's anniversary. Ayn Rand is someone people love to hate. Years after her death, people still feel compelled to attack her ideas.

A recent John Oliver segment said her philosophy, objectivism, "is just a nice way of saying 'being a selfish asshole.'" 

From Reason Magazine

If you're a Socialist especially a hardcore Socialist who looks up to people like Che Guevara and even have some respect at least for some aspects of communism, even if you don't like the authoritarian aspects of it, Ayn Rand literally is the devil. Because she represents everything that you hat: freedom, individualism, free-thinking, the belief that people should actually be able to make a living on their own and not have to be babysat by government.

Because if you are a Socialist who puts all their political eggs in the basket of big government like a wishbone offense in football that if they can't run the ball, they literally can't move the ball, because they have almost no passing game to speak of. And if government can't solve problems, by itself those problems don't get solved according to the Socialist. Because the socialist philosophy of socialism is completely centered not around government or even big government, but big centralized national government. Where even state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, barely exist, because so much power in the country is centralized with the national government.

Because Socialists tend to see freedom as dangerous and individualism as selfish. That if you give people the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs, you're only giving them the freedom to make mistakes that society (which is government, according to the Socialist) will have to pay for.

Also, is you give people the freedom  to manage their own affairs, they might become good at it which is what adults tend to do and not need or want government to take care of them and be less incline to have your tax dollars taking care of people who aren't as free as you. Socialists tend to see people who don't think like them at least, if not people in general as idiots. People who need help tying their own shoes and even spelling their own names. Who need big government managing their lives for them.

Socialists also see individualism as selfish. This idea that people can go out in the world and be creative, think for themselves and create new things. Is like trying to explain calculus to a fish. It's so foreign to them and would be like an American who has spent their whole life in America, who only speaks English and one day finds them self in Mongolia. It would be like being on another planet for that person having no idea what people are saying or even what language they're speaking.

That is what it's like trying to explain freedom and individualism to Socialists. You might have better luck trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese. Because freedom and individualism, completely goes against everything that Socialists have ever believed and have been taught.

As much as the Christian-Right hates feminism and freedom and equal rights for women, as if women are human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives and deserving of equal rights as men, thats how much Socialists whether they're democratic or communist, hate Ayn Rand. Because they see her as the devil who represents individualism and freedom. Which to them is as bad as cancer or stealing. It completely goes against what they believe in and what they've been taught as people. 

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch: 'Republicans: 'We Have To Cut Taxes Because We're Too Cowardly To Cut Spending'

Source: Reason Magazine- Senator Rand Paul & President Donald Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia.

'Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal Conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reaction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets.'

Call me silly, but when I think of fiscal Conservatives I think of people who believe the national debt and budget deficits, not only exist (unlike at least some Socialists) but its a big deal. (Unlike most Socialists) That when government borrows heavily and run up high deficits and debt especially when their economy is growing and job growth is high, which is what the American economy is doing right now, that running high deficits and debt is not a good thing.

Because you end up having your government, as well as your economy depending on others to make sure your government gets the borrowing that it needs run its operations. Plus, when you run high deficits and debt, which is where America is now while your economy is strong which is where are now as far as growing economy with low unemployment and high job growth, your government ends up competing with the private sector for borrowing. Which affects interest rates and makes it more difficult for private organizations to borrow money. Which is where we are now which isn't much different from the 1980s that had strong economic and job growth for most of the decade, while the U.S. Government was piling up deficits and debt every year. Which affected the stock market with the 1987 crash and was partially responsible for the recession of the early 1990s.

So to me anyway a fiscal Conservative is someone who is not only concern about high deficits and debt, but is crazy enough to believe that those issues need to be dealt with so at the very least they don't get out of hand. If there is anything positive about having a Republican united government (and most of the country is still looking for anything positive about that) it would be at least now there's a political party in power and in control that will finally deal with our deficits and debt. And works to pass policies out of Congress that brings our deficit down and perhaps even puts the budget on a path where it could be balanced at some point. Where at the very least the national debt is now growing faster than the economy.

Again, if there's anything positive about having the Republican Party in charge of anything, it would be at least you would have fiscal Conservatives in charge who'll bring down our debt and deficits. get our spending under control, decentralize the Federal Government, get more power out of Washington. But thats not where the Republican Party is right now. They seem to believe that fiscal conservatism is about obtaining power, not about governing. But as a tool to use to get into power, but once you're there then it becomes about staying in power.

And I'm not picking on Socialists anymore than they deserve to at least, but tax cuts in America are popular to anyone who is not a Socialist. Perhaps more popular to Republicans and the Republican Leadership in Congress and at the White House, has concluded that the best way for them to stay in power is to pass popular bills that will help them get reelected and keep their majorities next year. And then let their children and grandchildren figure out the costs of their parents and grandparents borrow and spending. National debt card spending spree that covers everything from defense spending and generous tax loopholes, to Federal spending covering public education and medical research. As well as the Federal safety net.

I really could call this piece The Death of Fiscal Conservatism, because that is what we're seeing in the Republican Party. Even with House Republican who in 2014 were railing against the so-called Obama deficits and national debt and overspending and arguing about how big a threat to our children's future and other nonsense that they've seem to forgotten. Apparently power does corrupt and its a lot easier to be loudmouth when you're on the sidelines than actually in the game with the ball. Apparently Republicans now believe that you don't have be in the game to govern, but don't even have to have any balls to take on high deficits, the national debt and that governing to them is just about staying in power. And again leaving it to others to figure out how much their governing which is really borrowing, is going to cost others later on.

The great political humorist P.J. who is a Libertarian and I don't think you could pay him to be a Democrat today and even if you could it might bankrupt the Democratic Party and perhaps major economies to get P.J. to even consider doing the Democratic Party, gave a speech at the National press Club several years ago talking about so-called Conservatives and fiscal responsibility. I wrote a piece for FRS Real Life Journal where I write lifestyle and entertainment, as well as humorous pieces and put the link of his speech on that blog. And you can see that here.

I argued back in 2014 that Republicans when they only controlled the House of Representatives while Barack Obama was will President and Democrats still controlled the Senate, that so-called fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, were just tools to blame the Democrats for the financial and economic problems of the country. Republicans and the Tea Party, only saw fiscal conservatism as a way to get back into power, but never as a tool to actually use to govern and finally bring down our deficits and debt. And with President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, I'm being proven right everyday.

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy'

Source: Reason Magazine- Mel Brooks, hates political correctness.

Source:The Daily Review

"Mel Brooks, recently said in an interview that "political correctness" will be the “death of comedy.” Brooks, best known for comedies "Blazing Saddles," "Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” and “The Producers,” sat down with BBC4 recently to talk about his work. He said, “We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy. It’s not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks." Regarding the portrayal of racial prejudice in his film “Blazing Saddles" from 1974, the director said, “Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it." Brooks is currently developing “Young Frankenstein” into a West End stage show.

From Wochit Entertainment

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else.

Reason: John Stossel- Lilly Tang Williams: '100 Years of Communist Disaster'

Source:Reason Magazine- Happy Birthday to Communism, from John Stossel.

Source:The Daily Review 

"This year marks communism's 100th birthday. Its horrors should remind us of the value of freedom." 

From Reason Magazine

China is a good example of a communist disaster as far as their economic system until they started their privatization program about 40 years ago and moved to a more capitalist private enterprise economic system.

But China is still a communist unitarian one-party state that happens to have a private enterprise economic system, while still maintaining some state-owned enterprises. Their political system is still a one-party communist system and there's still no free press, free speech, right to privacy, fair trial, etc, things that liberal democracies like America have.

And yet I don't think anyone at this point would argue that the People's Republic of China is a failed state. Just a little push back at John Stossel's broad point here that communism has failed in China.

I'm more interested in the somewhat rebirth if not of communism, but certainly socialism and what I call Neo-Communism. Which is a very illiberal (not liberal) form of socialist-collectivism which is somewhat undemocratic while still leaving in some democratic principles.

For example, non-socialist parties are still allowed to technically run for national office in Venezuela. The Center-Left Liberal Democrats did win control of the National Assembly there a few years ago. But then what the so-called Socialist (Neo-Communist) Maduro Government does there is say that those elections were not valid and the opposition is now a threat to the country (meaning the Maduro Government) and the Maduro Government starts their own brand new National Assembly where only members of the Socialist Party there are allowed to serve.

Which is a big reason why we're seeing so much chaos in Venezuela there because the economy is collapsing in a country that is energy independent and yet they can't produce enough affordable energy for most of the country. But rising inflation and interest rates, shortages of other basic necessities in life including food. Because Big Uncle Nick (meaning President Nicolas Maduro) believes his state is more capable of producing the goods and services that the Venezuelan people need better than the people themselves.

And that Venezuela is a country of 25 millions morons essentially who are too stupid to manage their own affairs. And they need Big Uncle Nick and his army of Neo-Communists (his government) to take care of them for them.

Venezuela is the perfect example of a failed Neo-Communist state and disaster. Cuba would be another great example, add North Korea. Anyone seen or heard from the Soviet Union lately or seen any Soviets? Almost like they've disappeared from the face of the Earth.

But to bring it back home back to America where no one who isn't an alcoholic or drug addict actually believes communism will ever takeover America and run this country. But there is a new socialist movement that has two wings in it.

One, is a democratic socialist wing led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, who by enlarge are both peace-loving Hippies from the 1960s who perhaps occasionally enjoy a joint every now and then who do live on cloud nine politically in the sense that they both have this warped fantasy that perhaps you could only get from smoking too much pot, that government services are free.

That if American taxpayers just gave up most of their income to Uncle Sam, or perhaps Uncle Bernie and his wife Aunt Jill, assuming that we wouldn't allow them to just take our money from us, that America would turn into some beautiful socialist utopia. With no one ever going without not enough or enjoying too much, because the U.S. Government would collect our wealth for us and then manage for us and decide for us what we need to live well.

Besides, in Bernie and Jill's view Americans tend to be stupid anyway and aren't capable of making our own complicated decisions anyway that you would probably need a masters degree from an Ivy League or some other great Northeastern or West Coast university to be able to manage properly.

Such complicated decisions like where we should get our health insurance, health care, how to invest for our retirement, where to get our childcare for our kids, who to take care of our kids when they get older, etc. Basic decisions that only New York, San Francisco, and Washington yuppie intellectuals are capable of making. And therefor according to Uncle Bernie and Aunt Jill and other Socialists, should have this decision-making power over everyone else and given the power to run our lives for us.

But wait, it gets a helluva a lot worse than that. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, are the good Socialists for the most part. Other than having a hard time telling the truth about the costs and consequences of their economic policies. Its much worst than the Sanders-Stein factions of American socialism.

Move over to the American Neo-Communists the people who hate free speech so much that they'll use their free speech rights to try to shut up people who disagree with them. Even use violent tactics and terrorism to try to shut people up. We saw this at Berkley during this winter.

The Neo-Communists are people who say they hate capitalism even though they own almost every form of new technology there is and claim they can't live without their smartphones and iPads and other devices. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and own all of them. And yet they say they hate capitalism.

Neo-Communists are people who claim to love animals and are for animal rights and put people down for the eating cheeseburgers and other meat and call that animal cruelty as they're wearing leather jackets.

Again, who say they hate capitalism even though they spend most of their time when they're not protesting against free speech, at coffee houses on their laptops and iPhones. Who claim our Founding Fathers (the original Liberal Democrats) were evil racists who created this evil American empire. As they wear t-shirts of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and support those two men who are both responsible for the murders of thousands of people. In Fidel's case perhaps millions.

Communism will never make it to America at least as a governing philosophy where we would see some communist regime installed and running the U.S. Government. Because Americans tend to be too individualist and once we are educated we tend to know what doesn't work and what does work and are able and want to make our own decisions in life both personally and economically.

Besides, the examples of failed communism and failed communist states are widely known. At least outside of the Millennial Generation and once the Millennial's finally grow up I believe they'll come to realize that the pot fantasies that they had in their twenties and even thirties about how like totally awesome socialism and communism is, was nothing more than a social fad and an attempt to look cool with their generation.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin: Hey Libertarians For Donald Trump, How Much More Winning Can You Take?

Source:Reason Magazine-real Libertarians don't like anything about the MAGA Cult King Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe to understand why some so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump in 2016 and still do today, you have to understand libertarianism and libertarian society. You also have to understand the anti-Hillary Clinton movement which includes the Far-Left and Bernie Sanders socialist movement. The Far-Right nationalist and Christian-Conservative theocratic movement. But the Libertarian-Right and the fringe movement on the Libertarian-Right.

Not all and perhaps most Libertarians aren't fringe and I have a lot of respect for true Libertarians especially Conservative-Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul and Liberal-Libertarians like Governor Gary Johnson. But there is a fringe libertarian movement that is highly conspiratorial (just like Donald Trump) and sees any evidence and information that contradicts their beliefs as some type of either government conspiracy or leftist conspiracy.

By the way, the nationalist movement, the Britbart's and others who still back Donald Trump and his supporters in Congress, are also conspiratorial. You have a movement on the Far-Right and fringe Libertarian-Right that sees Hilary Clinton as nothing but the devil. As some radical feminist Marxist-Communist from the 1960s, who would ruin America by forcing her form of anti-male (especially Caucasian male) radical feminism, as well as Atheism on the country. And put radical feminists in charge of everything and try to completely outlaw all forms of individualism. Even if that individualism comes from women. And then add the fact that Hillary Clinton is hawk on a lot of foreign policy and national security issues, adds to why fringe so-called Libertarians absolutely hate the woman.

The Far-Left hates Hillary because she's a hawk, but she's also not a Socialist and has no issues with being successful and wealthy and everything else that Socialists hate about America and American capitalism. But the fringe so-called Libertarians are the same people who believe John Kennedy was murdered by the CIA. That 9/11 was an inside job. That President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, because Saddam Hussein ordered George W. father H.W. Bush to be murdered and to steal Iraq's oil.

So of course Trumpian cult followers are going to believe Donald Trump when he says that Russia didn't try to interfere with our elections in 2016, because they see that as some made up government conspiracy by our National Security State. Donald Trump represents to them the anti-establishment. People who hate Washington and the people who work there, especially for the Federal Government. That is why these so-called Libertarians (cult followers is more accurate) are backing Donald Trump so heavily. Because he's the leader of their anti-establishment political cult.

That is why you have Kristin Tate who up until just two years ago was an actual Libertarian, say she has to put aside her libertarian views to support Donald Trump. Why Wayne Allyn Root backs everything that Donald Trump does and always has a reason for it and that reason being that if Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, than it must be true. Whether its bombing Syria in the same of protecting human life, trying to ban Muslims from coming into the country which violates freedom of religion. Labeling Mexicans as racists, or saying there are fine people in the racist Alt-Right Neo-Nazi movement.

These Trumpian cult followers and this is going to sound harsh, but I really believe this, but they remind me of the Manson Family from the late 1960s. Who when ordered to commit those murders essentially said this must be the right thing to do because their leader Charles Manson says it is. Which of course sounds crazy but there's not exactly a surplus of sanity around when you're talking about fringes whether they're on the Far-Right or Far-Left. "Donald Trump believes its the right thing to do, so it must be. Besides, he's not Hillary Clinton so it must be okay." Which to me sounds like the attitude of the Donald Trump cult followers and why these so-called Libertarians support Donald Trump.
Source:Reason

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Frank Furedi: 'College Students Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal'

Source:Reason Magazine- author Frank Furedi, with a book about college students.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Sociologist Frank Fruedi and Reason’s Nick Gillespie discuss the decline of free speech on campus and his new book, What Happened to the University: a Sociological Exploration of its Infantilisation.”

From Reason Magazine

As someone who didn't even graduate college I'm probably not the right spokesperson for this, (to say the least) but I've always believed that college is supposed to be a place to learn and and even learn news ideas.

College should be a place where new ideas and things that people didn't hear much if anything about in high school or anywhere else and not to automatically take those new ideas and philosophies on face value and automatically, but to learn about them and then decide for themselves on the best available evidence possible on the worth of those ideas and philosophies.

That it's not the job of college to tell people how to think and what to think, but how to learn and then the students can figure out for themselves the worth of what they're learned and what it means on the best available evidence possible.

Call me naive if you want, but that is what I believe. I think what we're seeing at college now is sort of the opposite of that. That you have professors who don't teach their students about ideas and philosophies as much as they try to teach their students what to think. That this is what you should believe because this is what is right and wrong. Instead of giving their students the freedom to learn and experience and figure out what works for them and in society for themselves. Again on the best available evidence possible.

Today what we're seeing at college with young students like millennial's and soon to be the so-called Z Generation, is that the opposites are being taught and learned as far as what makes America great and what makes our diverse vast liberal democracy work so well.

According to too many millennial's freedom and free speech are bad. They seem to believe that free speech is nothing more than the right to offend someone and because of that we should eliminate free speech because someone might be offended by what is heard and believed.

That personal freedom is nothing more than the right to make mistakes and screw up that the rest of society will have to pay for.

That capitalism and property rights are racist and selfish. Because African-Americans and Latino-Americans, haven't done as well as European and Asian-Americans economically in America and because of that capitalism is racist and unfair.

That allowing people to keep what they own and have earned simply by purchasing it with money they've earned, that is somehow selfish for people to be able to keep property for themselves. And as a result some people will have to go without because you have these selfish people keeping their own property and not sharing it with people who have little.

That Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were great men because they took on the man (so to speak) and that Tomas Jefferson is evil because he owned African slaves. Even in a time when almost all European men in America with means owned slaves. Forgetting the facts that Fidel and Che were both Marxist-Communists who killed people simply because they disagreed with them politically and would lock people up simply for dissenting.

As I said the opposites are being taught to young people in and outside of college in America. And one can just say: "Hey, look at those stupid young people. Don't worry, they'l grow up and be forced to go to work in order to support themselves and learn how the real world works, even if they end up bashing the American system that they've benefited from their whole lives."

One could say that young people being so ignorant is not important  and perhaps these Millennial's as they reach their forties and fifties at worst will end up being like these fake Hollywood Socialists like the Jane Fonda's and Mike Moore's of the world, who end up bashing capitalism and freedom in general, even as they collect their millions and continue to take advantage of a system as they should, that they've benefited so much from.

The thing with socialism is that it's much easier to practice as long as you don't have to live with it. It's a much better system hypothetically than in practice and having to live with it. Because at the end of the day whether you're an Ayn Rand Objectivist-Libertarian, or a Marxist-Socialist, we're all Americans. And we all tend to want to be successful in life and live comfortably. I believe that is the best hope that we can have for the Millennial Generation at this point. 

Reason: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Kristin Tate: 'The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild'

Source:Reason Magazine- the so-called Libertarian Chick: Kristin Tate.

Source:The New Democrat

"It sounds nice to say things like, 'Oh, I really want to help the poor and everyone deserves free college and health care'," says Kristin Tate, political columnist at The Libertarian Chick blog and author of the new book Government Gone Wild: How D.C. Politicians Are Taking You for a Ride—and What You Can Do About It. "But in reality, getting people hooked on the government and not giving them pathways to becoming self-sufficient is not compassionate." 

Tate sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about her new book—which she has designed to be a libertarian manifesto for millennials—and why the 2016 election wants to make her "projectile vomit." "I don't really see any liberty-friendly candidates," Tate laments. 

She also stresses that libertarians need to "shine a spotlight" on the idea that getting people hooked on government programs is not a compassionate position and how focusing on individual liberty can create an uplifting message that will appeal to millennials and voters of all ages. " 

From Reason 

I know I'm going to over-generalize here and I'm not a Libertarian, but it's good to hear a Millennial who is not a Socialist . Who doesn't think speech they disagree with should be censored. Who doesn't believe there's a government program to solve everyone's problems for them. Who doesn't believe government services are free. Who doesn't believe government should protect people from themselves either from an economic or personal standpoint. 

Not saying all Millennial's are Socialists. (Not over-generalizing that much) but the Bernie Sanders movement are Millennial's and New-Left Socialists from the 1960s who still believe the Fidel Castro Marxist Revolution is still alive and well in Cuba. The 1-2% of the Jill Stein Green Party movement, is the same movement as the Bernie Sanders movement. The difference believing that Senator Sanders isn't as partisan as Dr. Stein and doesn't see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the same: "So what's the point of voting for either?"

Millennial's are a diverse population politically. You have a democratic socialist wing. 

You have what I at least would call a classically-liberal wing. People who are very liberal and anti-big government on social issues and believe in a lot of personal freedom as far as allowing people to make their own decisions. Who don't want big government taking care of them financially either, but don't want the safety net for people who truly need it to disappear. And that is the Gary Johnson base right there and he has Millennial support. He's says he's someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. 

And then you have the Ron Paul libertarian wing that Kristin Tate represents. People who have very little if any role for government at all. Who are way to the right of Gary Johnson on economic and fiscal policy. 

And then you have the non-political wing of the Millennial Generation. Who are too busy staking out Apple Stores so they're the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone. And are too busy with new technology and celebrity culture, to follow politics at all.

Millennial's aren't Socialists, they aren't Liberals, they aren't Centrists and they aren't Libertarians. This is a generation that's still finding their way politically. I mean the oldest Millennial right now is 36 years old. 

We didn't know how to label the Baby Boom Generation at least until the 1980s when they started entering their forties. They started off as part of the New-Left radical socialist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Then they finally grew up, started taking showers, discovered barber shops, got their hair cut, got jobs, got married, had kids and moderated their political views at least to the point they were no longer bombing schools and banks, because they thought capitalism was unfair and racist. 

What I hope happens with the Millennial Generation is that they grow up as well as a generation and discover that part of living in a liberal democracy (and yes, liberal democracy) is from time to time hearing political viewpoints that they disagree with and even find insulting. 

Reason Magazine: Why Republicans Should Vote Libertarian

Source:Reason Magazine- Wishful thinking!

Source:The New Democrat

Why should Republicans should vote Libertarian this election? Well why should Conservative Republicans and my mean Conservative-Libertarian Republicans vote Libertarian this election? Because the Republican nominee is a big government Republican. Who couldn't care less about the Constitution if it limits his power, who was once a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat on social issues, before we had an African-American president. And the Democratic nominee is a Progressive Democrat who would raise taxes on the wealthy and has big government leaning when it comes to national security and civil liberties as it relates to the War on Terror. The Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, will be on the ballot in all fifty-states. If the entire Never Tump in movement in the Republican Party goes to Gary Johnson and gets in the debates, voting against Donald Trump, doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is the next president. You could prevent both Hillary and The Donald, from winning the Electoral College and perhaps nominating Gary as president in the House of Representatives.

If you're a Republican who believes that there's too much power with the Federal Government and not enough power with the states and with individuals, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, is you're only choice. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both believe in fiscal responsibility, low taxes and decentralization of government. They're also against big government all together and don't want to take big government out of the economy it put it in people's homes. So the Christian-Right, doesn't have much interest in voting for the Johnson-Weld ticket. Nor does big government national security Neoconservatives, or the Alt-Right, who represents the entire Far-Right in America. But the Republican Party at it's core is still a party that believes in economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government. And even if you don't go with Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, that doesn't necessarily mean you want government to enforce your cultural values on the rest of the country. And force everyone else to live the same way.

The case against Donald Trump and for the Libertarian Party, is a case in favor of limited government . And against someone who believes he should have all the power and tells people he'll fix all of their problems for them, if he has no opposition and no one questions anything that he does. It's a case against big government and right-wing authoritarian fascism, against Vladimir Putin. And a case in favor of limited government and checks and balances. That the executive can't do everything on their own. That we have a Congress, judiciary and two-party system for good reasons. Because we can't afford to trust one person and generally one party to govern this huge diverse country by themselves. You don't have 17 presidential candidates and a divided Republican Party, no way Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee for president. And perhaps The Donald runs as an Independent or starts a nationalist party or something. But he is there presidential nominee and Conservative-Libertarians have a better option for president.
Source:Reason

Nick Gillespie: Authoritarians vs. Libertarians Is the Real Fight On The Right

Source:The Daily Beast- John Belushi vs Big Brother?

Source:The New Democrat

I disagree with Nick Gillespie for a couple of reasons on this. When I’m willing to take Donald Trump seriously as a presidential candidate and not some bad reality TV performer whose just there to perform a role, draw ratings and attention and promote their future career, then I might take The Donald seriously as not just a presidential candidate, but a Far-Right fascist authoritarian. Every Anne Coulter Neoconservative utopian fantasy come true. But the problem is Senator Marco Rubio so far has the best comment about The Donald’s presidential campaign and that he called him a con man. The Donald you see today is not The Donald from even five years ago, let alone ten years. The Donald Trump we see today politically we’ve never seen before. No one has and he’s losing friends as a result.

As far as Senator Ted Cruz, I don’t buy him as an authoritarian either. Demagogue? Sure. Hyper-partisan? Sure. Someone who believes in shutting down the government over governing even though he’s an elected government official? Sure. But those things alone don’t make you an authoritarian. If you look at Senator Cruz’s positions when it comes to civil liberties like the Patriot Act and the broader War on Terror, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, right to privacy, he does very well there. And is one of the strongest proponents of civil liberties in Congress and he’s only been there for a little more than three years. And even on issues where he would disagree with Liberals such as myself and Libertarians such as Nick Gillespie, he takes a federalist approach. Instead of the neoconservative big government nationalist view.

As far as the future of the Republican Party. Do they want to be a big government neoconservative authoritarian party, or do they want to be a conservative-libertarian party where both Conservatives in the Ted Cruz sense and Libertarians in the Rand Paul sense, can thrive and succeed? Assuming Donald Trump is there next presidential nominee and we’ll know tomorrow night how close he is to that, they probably need to lose another presidential election big and lose most of the big states before we see which direction they go in. Because if The Donald is their next presidential nominee, he’s going to lose and lose big. Even if he moderates for the general, because he’s already on record for taking so many Far-Right neoconservative views. As it relates to women, Latinos, Muslims, etc. And won’t win the presidency simply by winning a shrinking a Caucasian working class. And the Christian-Right.

The Daily Beast: Nick Gillespie: 'Why Hillary Clinton Should Thank God for Donald Trump'

Source:The Daily Beast- Secretary Hillary R. Clinton: 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

SourceThe Daily Review

"Forget the fake facts, the Mexicans-are-rapists racism, the stupefying ignorance of international trade, and the unambiguous and unapologetic anti-Muslim bigotry. Forget even the fact that he’s just a gold-plated Billy Mays who has pitched every goddamned crap product from frozen steaks to a failed namesake university to mattresses."

From The Daily Beast

"Donald Trump calls Hillary Clinton to interview her before her "Tonight Show" appearance."

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton either and I don't come at that as either a Libertarian, or a Progressive, but just as a Democrat who is an American voter before I'm a Democrat, or even a Liberal. I don't like her because she gives political opportunism a bad name. There needs to be some new term to describe how Hillary has changed positions on critical issues over the years. Like con-women, career politician, politician junky, power-hungry, overly ambitious and these would just be the light terms that could apply with her.

Against same-sex marriage before she was for it, against allowing states to legalize marijuana, before she was for it, pro-Iraq War until it became too politically hard for her stand by it and came out against it. And when it comes to civil liberty issues where she does have a consistent record, she comes down on the wrong side at least from a liberal, or libertarian perspective. Pro-Patriot Act and NSA spying, to use as examples. I hate to say this as a Democrat, but in many way she's the Democratic version of Mitt Romney. And could marry Flip Flopper and become Mrs. Flip Flopper, instead of Bill Clinton. At least Flip, wouldn't cheat on Hillary every time she's out-of-town.

Why is Hillary the frontrunner not only for the Democratic nomination for president, but most likely the 45th President of the United States in January, 2017? Because her main opposition, (if you want t call it that) is the Republican Party. Who is literally running a one-man reality show in Donald Trump for president. And when the mainstream Republican presidential candidates like Jeb Bush, goes after The Donald, it hurts them in the GOP polls. But when they don't, they're devastating their own chances in the general election, if they get that far by not going after the reality TV con-man and fascist.

In a normal presidential election, Hillary is probably still the favorite to win the Democratic nomination at least with an edge going into the general election. But she wouldn't be looking at a landslide and would have a Center-Right Republican as her competition and instead of scaring Latinos, Muslims and women, would instead be reaching out to those groups and making inroads with those communities. She would most likely be facing a Jeb Bush, or John Kasich and perhaps a Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz emerges instead. But The Donald, would still be back at home hiring illegal immigrants, instead of bashing them. And perhaps preparing to file bankruptcy on another one of his companies. Because the GOP would never be dumb enough to give The Donald any credibility.

Similar to President Barack Obama in 2011-12, if 2016 was about Hillary's record as a politician and public servant and not about her lack of competition from the other side, she's not walking away with the Democratic nomination right now. Governor Martin O'Malley, my preferred choice, would be giving her a hell of a run for her money. Because he was a successful Center-Left Governor. A true Center-Left Progressive with results as Governor. Bernie Sanders, would be the Dennis Kucinich of 2016, but not as wild and fringe and having at least one foot on Earth. Unlike Kucinich, who lives on Planet Utopia mentally, where there's no need to even have a military. And Hillary, would have to take on Governor O'Malley, like she took on then Senator Barack Obama in 2008. And either earn the Democratic nomination, or lose it. But there's nothing normal about 2015-16.

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein: Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?

Source:Reason Magazine- Gilbert Gottfried?

Source:The Daily Review

One of the comedians up there, I think it was the female comedian there said and I'm paraphrasing that people have to realize what humor and a jokes are. Unless you're a Socialist, or something humor and entertainment is exactly that. You're not trying to change the world simply with entertainment, but comment on in a humorous way what you see in the world. And a smart comedian will use their humor to also inform people about what is going on, because they follow the news. And in a lot of cases talking to people who know everything about Hollywood and whose sleeping with who and what shoes someone wore when they went out to lunch, but perhaps not even sure what the capital of the state is let alone the United States. So someone like that could actually learn a lot from a smart comedian, if they bother to listen can stay off their smartphone for more than five-minutes at a time.

With free speech, bloggers and comedians might as well sell life insurance door to door. Perhaps park cars, or get some other jobs that is not nearly as much fun as parking cars and selling insurance door to door. We shouldn't have to worry that if we say this and make fun of that, then this oversensitive group or that one, will be offended. Because their blood pressure is already as high as a skyscraper, because they don't smoke pot and simply don't know how to relax. We also shouldn't have to worry about if we make fun of this or that politician or that movement, that somehow we let whatever movement that has been just offended down, setting back fifty-years or whatever. That if we make jokes about labor unions, then people will have a harder time organizing. Or if we make fun of corporations, that will damage Wall Street, or whatever.

We have a very liberal First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech in America. Without it, again comedians and bloggers might as well go work for the state, or something and retire with their pensions after twenty-years or whatever. And because little things like free speech, Right to Privacy and property rights. And because of these great liberal individual rights Americans have a lot of individual freedom in America. Even the freedom to say and do things that others may not approve of. But the people who disagree with us can privately and publicly express their disagreement with us, as well as do and say things we don't approve of. That is called liberal democracy and freedom and with what comes with those great things is also responsibility. So yeah, we have the right even to be assholes, but people have the right to tell us how big of an asshole we really are. Or even think we're assholes when the only thing we're guilty of speaking the truth.

Reason: Matt Welch: 'Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?'

Source:Reason Magazine- yes, free speech is under attack in America.

Source:The Daily Review 

"At some point it is inherently ridiculous when you can't laugh at Neil Patrick Harris making jokes on the Academy Awards," says Matt Welch, Reason Editor in Chief. At Reason Weekend 2015, the annual donor event for the nonprofit that publishes this website, Welch discussed how today's society, full of trigger warnings and a sensitivity to opposing ideas, has lead to a watered down approach to the First Amendment. 

"It's not fun when you're walking around policing jokes all day long, it's not an attractive pose to people," continues Welch." 

From Reason Magazine

If there is one place in the world where you want people to be free to think for themselves and learn new things and hear new ideas and be able to learn and develop their own views on the issues, it would be college and I would add high school to that. 

For democracy, especially liberal democracy to mean anything people have to be free to speak and think for themselves. Instead of creating some collectivist board of so-called experts who are only experts in name only and perhaps in actuality only being experts on the nonsense that they believe in. Telling the peasants the people they rule over what speech is appropriate and what isn't. Rewarding people for speech that they agree with and punishing even through governmental force when people say things that offends the so-called experts.

We don't have a liberal democracy without Freedom of Speech. And Free Speech is exactly that. Not the right to be nice, or be mean , or be correct, or lie, but the right to speak freely. To express yourself and even say things that someone might view as offensive. Even if they have such a big foot stuck up their ass tight ass that they can't even handle criticism that is correct. 

Imagine if you were doctor, who wasn't allowed to give your patients bad news. So you end up telling your obese patients that they don't need to exercise and cut down on their 5-6 meals a day and not have to eat stuff other than fast food, because not all obese people suffer heart attacks and develop diabetes and all of the other diseases that are related to obesity. That doctor would end up being useless, because they wouldn't be able to treat any of their unhealthy patients, because they would never be allowed to give bad news. For fear of hurting their patients self-esteem.

That is what political correctness is. It is not only a form of fascism, leftist fascism when it comes from the Left and a form of Marxism. But it is an attempt to hide people from negative truths for fear of hurting and oversensitive person's self-esteem:

"We can't call Joe fat, because that might not only offend Joe, but fat people in general. And fat is used to put down fat people. And even though I'm Joe's doctor and I've seen men like him die from heart attacks and from diabetes, because they didn't even know what exercise was and didn't eat properly, I'm not going to tell Joe that he's overweight and too fat. Because I'm more interested in his self-esteem than his physical health."

That is what practicing medicine would become like if doctors weren't allowed to tell their patients the truth. And that is just one example of the dangers of political correctness in America. Free Speech, is not the right to not be offended, but to express yourself and hear what others have to say as well.