Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini: 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes."

From Ron Paul Liberty Report

This blog post is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator's Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they're both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn't have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it's the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it's wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you're familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they're short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: "you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes." Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn't matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don't overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’

Source:USA Today- “Tax Day 2019 Coundown Calendar."

Source:The New Democrat

“We hear a lot about words and phrases we should or shouldn’t use these days, politics having crept into virtually every area of our lives. At the risk of promoting even more political correctness, here are some terms that can legitimately be considered micro-aggressions when used in the presence of net taxpayers on April 15:”

The rest of Tom’s piece at Tom Mullen

"Discord available in CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND and the U.S.

Tax season is upon us, and it’s time to reconsider your politics… unless you don’t make six figures."

From College Humor

Source:College Humor-  Is this the same Republican Party, that raises taxes on the middle class, because they believe the wealthy are overtaxed?

I have a different take than Tom on this, ( who I’m friends with on Facebook and follow him on Twitter ) because I believe that to have a civilized, developed society you need some type of functioning, responsible, but limited government there to insure that. Not to run our lives for us, but protect us from predators foreign  and domestic and to perform our basic, but limited services like infrastructure. And for government whatever level it is to perform these necessary services, it needs revenue to do that. Government’s are financed through taxes,  at least when they’re run responsibly and when they’re not or their economy is going rough times they’re funded through borrowing. That’s just how government is able to operate regardless of the jurisdiction or country.

No one enjoys paying taxes, ( except honest Socialists ) but who enjoys paying for groceries or whatever else that we pay for? And the Libertarian is going to say that we don’t have a choice to pay for the government that we receive and don’t get to decide on what government services that we  receive: they’re just wrong on that since as Ronald Reagan once said people vote with their feet. We choose where we live and what level of government and taxation that we get based on where we live. We’re not forced to live in any country, state, county, or city. We make the decisions based on what we do for a living and our economic conditions and choose the best place for us to live based on these factors. If you don’t want to live somewhere where you have to pay taxes, move to a country where they don’t have a government, or at least a functioning government. I hear Haiti and Somalia are open for new residents everyday.

Now, where I believe Tom Mullen and I might agree hear and have somethings in common here ( he as a Libertarian and myself as a Liberal ) is having to deal with let’s say the opposite of people who are known as Anarcho-Libertarians, which of course are Socialists.

The only people anywhere in the world who pays taxes not just gladly and proudly, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find filling out their taxes with smiles on their faces, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find not just asking or demanding, but begging Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces at the IRS for more taxes and higher taxes, are Socialists.

And I’m not talking about corrupt Socialist dictators who are some of the wealthiest people in the world, while half of their people or more have to beg for food and money in order to pay their bills. And I’m not talking about these so-called Hollywood Leftists who act like they hate wealth and capitalism, even though they personally enjoy being wealthy and have benefited greatly from capitalism. I’m talking about honest to goodness, ( to use a corny phrase ) down to earth, honest Socialists. Who when they have any extra money at all they always donate that money to their favorite charity like Uncle Sam or perhaps another charity, but who generally live simple lives. Who are very generous with their time and money.  ( Not someone else’s time and money )

These are the people who believe that tax day should be a holiday and always get together and celebrate tax day together with wine and cheese or coffee house coffee, listening to French poetry and folk music. Whatever you think of their politics, at least they’re honest about it, which is more than can say about most politicians. Especially the wealthy ones who are always calling for higher taxes on everyone else.

Professor Milton Friedman: Equality and Freedom

Source:David Whitehead- "The great Milton Friedman on equality and freedom."

Source:The New Democrat

“Milton Friedman – Equality and Freedom”

Source:Basic Economics- Professor Milton Friedman giving a lecture n 1978.

From Basic Economics

Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and company, argue that it's somehow wrong that we have people who make a lot of money, while we have some people who make very little money and in some cases don't make any money at all, that having a wealth gap ( which is also called income inequality ) is somehow unfair.

That it's somehow unfair for an associate lawyer ( let's say ) at a law firm to make 250,000 dollars a year ( depending on where they work ) while a janitor at a school makes 25,000 dollars a year and perhaps has a second job just to pay his bills. Even though the lawyer not only has a law degree and spent at least years in college and law school to get that law degree and did well in college and law school and now has the skills and education to be a successful lawyer.

While the janitor might just have a high school diploma and maybe he doesn't even have that. And only has enough skills and knowledge to do menial tasks ( let's say ) where a professional education isn't required. Like doing janitorial work or driving cabs or whatever the non-college educated job might be. Even though being just an average lawyer or a good one is a lot harder that being a good janitor, because there's a lot more you need to know about the law than you do in keeping your place of business clean for people to be there.

Professor Milton Friedman, went the opposite route and argued that it's a good thing when the lawyer or businessperson or entertainer or whoever the successful person in life might be who makes a lot of money is a good thing, because they earned their money based on their skills, knowledge, and production. That the reason why business people make a lot more money than let's say service industry workers, is because the college educated workforce has a lot more skills and knowledge and that there's a lot more work involved in what they do. Compared with service industry workers who in a lot of cases aren't even blue-collar workers, but do jobs where you might not even need a high schools diploma to be successful at.

My point about so-called income inequality or what I call the wealth and skills gap has always been that the problem with the American economy and American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people or that we even allow for people to have wealth and even a lot of money, but that we don't have enough rich people and upper middle class people. But instead have too many poor people. If we didn't have 1-5 Americans living in poverty in America, would anyone even on the Left be talking about what they call income inequality? If we had 1-10 Americans or 1-20 Americans who fall below the Federal poverty level, would poverty be an issue for anyone in this country who isn't poor themselves or donates to or works for charities? I doubt it would be because poverty wouldn't be visible at all for most of the country.

If you want less poverty or even a lot less poverty in this country, you do that encouraging people to be successful. You do that by encouraging and empowering as many Americans who want to be successful in this country to be successful. To get the education and skills that they need to make it in America and have the economic freedom that middle and upper income Americans have. You don't do that by heavily taxing the wealthy simply to take care of the poor. Or giving people middle incomes to people for choosing not to work and telling Americans that they don't need to work hard, get good skills, and be productive in order to live well in this country.

NBC News: Minister Malcolm X- 'Don't Beg For a Job: Create a Job'

Source:NBC News- Minister MalcolmX; speaking in New York in 1963 or 64.

Source:The New Democrat

"Your Name Is No Accident: http://tinyurl.com/z5qldpv

Malcolm X Says: Stop BEGGING the Man for a Job and CREATE a Job for Yourself by starting an ONLINE BUSINESS. Watch the FREE Video: http://www.launchyourstore.co.uk/

(This video is for educational purposes only and displayed under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.)"

Source:NBC News

For the life of me I'll never understand what the right-wing doesn't like about Minister Malcolm X and why the Far-Left loves him other than for these possible reasons:

The right-wing is either completely ignorant about the man or they fear strong African-Americans especially African-American men and simply see them as animals who escaped from the zoo or something. I think I understand what the Far-Left loves about him, because he was this strong, intelligent African-American man who constantly critiqued ( or even attacked ) people he called the man or the Whiteman and up until 1964 he was basically a racist as far as how he felt about European-Americans including Jews.

And as we're seeing with the emergence of Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party today, they don't like European-Americans either, especially if they're male, straight, Christian, have rural or blue-collar background. And see the largest racial group in America as Devils, especially the men in the community. Which is how Minister Malcolm viewed European-Americans up until the time he went to Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and met and talked to a lot of fellow Muslims there of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including European. And learned that not all Europeans are bigots and perhaps a lot of them are not bigots.

But if you look at Minister Malcolm's politics and what he was pushing for in the 1960s, it wasn't socialism and big government, including reparations. He had a lot more in common with Mr. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater, then he ever had in common with Senator George McGovern. ( The Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his era ) In an era when the Democratic Party was pushing for more welfare and other assistance from Big Government for the African-American community, Minister Malcolm had a different message for Democrats and others who wanted to give African-Americans more government assistance, which was telling Big Government: "we don't want your welfare and your socialism, we want our freedom and the power to control our own destinies. We want the same economic freedom that European and Asian-Americans have in this country. And keep your welfare for people who can't work and make it in this country."

So if you look at Minister Malcolm X's politics of real Black Power and empowering African-Americans to take control over their own lives through things like education and economic development and empowering African-Americans to become business owners and managers in their own communities, there's a lot for the right-wing especially Center-Right and Conservative-Libertarians in America to like about Minister Malcolm X. And a lot for the Far-Left even if they loved him for his identity politics to not like about Minister Malcolm and even hate the man. As they're pushing for more government control and welfare for Americans of all races and ethnicities.

Yaron Brook: 'Alexandria O. Cortez and The Principled Left'

Source:Yaron Brook- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialist. 

Source:The New Democrat

"This video was created by Christian Jackson.  Clipped from The Yaron Brook Show: Jesse Lee Peterson, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, & MGTOW streamed on Jan. 13 2019."

From Yaron Brook

 I agree with Yaron Brook at least in this sense: the establishment Democratic Party has been moving left ever since the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt when the Democratic Party started adapting progressive goals and values. It started first with public safety net for people that truly needed it with things like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. And then moved in the 1960s to civil rights like expanding the safety net with Medicare.

With the Republican Party essentially trying to catch up and essentially saying: "yeah, we support those things too" as those policies and programs becoming popular. The Great Society and civil rights were exceptions to that where without Republicans especially in the Northwest and Midwest, civil rights and parts of of the Great Society never get passed. Because the Democratic Party still had right-wing Neo-Confederates in the party that opposed civil rights laws and saw non-Europeans in America as second-class citizens and in some cases not even as citizens or even as human beings.

But really since Ronald Reagan was President, the Republican Party has been playing catch up to the Democrats on a lot of economic issues when it comes to the safety net. And saying: "we support these things too, but we would run them differently and introduce competition to them." Instead of saying that: "we don't need these public programs at all and we should just leave the economic policies up to the private sector."

Things are different now both in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party as well. Democrats at least the base of the party is no longer interested in the progressive safety net for people who truly need it. They want a universal, socialize welfare state where most if not ell workers benefits in this country with health care just being a part of that being provided for not just by government, but through the Federal Government. And putting the Federal Government in charge of making sure that every single American has what they would need to live well in the country and they're very honest about this.

With the Republican Leadership saying, "we believe in all of the public insurance programs that we currently have, but we want to put them on a sound financial footing and let the states run them." Instead of going into the opposite direction ( which is what Yaron Brook is arguing ) and saying that this is not the job of government, or at least not the job of the Federal Government. And we should leave it up to the private sector to handle employee benefits and take care of the needy in the country.

The Democratic Party has made it their goal to get not just every single racial and ethnic minority to vote for them, but every single woman who at least who is college educated and professional to vote for them, but they want to every single young voter to vote for them regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender. And the way to get young voters to vote for you is be being romantic and very idealist and saying that we ( meaning government ) can solve every societal problem known to man if we just put our minds to it ( meaning the Federal Government ) and promise every single social program that they can come up with and figure out the details later. Like how to pay for those programs.

With the Republican Party instead of going in the opposite direction and instead saying that: "there real limits to what government can and should try to do for the people and we can only tax so much while maintaining a strong economy." They instead try to come up with the best and most popular alternatives on the Right that they can get away with it. And try to hold onto power by trying to contain the Far-Left in the country, as well as passing so-called voter ID laws and gerrymandering to prevent young Democrats from voting in competitive races.

CATO Institute: Michael Tanner- 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

Source:National Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Outside the media and political circles that follow her every move, few probably noticed or cared when Alexandra Ocasio‐​Cortez pronounced capitalism “irredeemable.” But what are we to make of the refusal of former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper — supposedly the moderate in the Democratic field — to admit that he was a capitalist? Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, Hickenlooper turned aside several direct questions about whether he was a capitalist before allowing that “some aspects” of capitalism, like small business, “probably work.” And what about the fact that 77‐​year‐​old avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is in a statistical tie for the Democratic nomination?"

From the Cato Institute

"Democrats’ hard left turn to socialism. 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain discusses future of the Democratic Party."

Source:FOX Business- Not sure that Herman Cain is the best spokesman on the Democratic Party, but I don't work for FOX News. Thank God! 

From FOX Business

Source:FOX News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress 

This is a great a timely piece from CATO's Michael Tanner, because I was watching The Lead with Jake Tapper in CNN yesterday afternoon, ( you can do that when you work from your desk and office ) and they were talking about this exact same issue.

Tapper, asked Conservative CNN political analyst  Amanda Carpenter basically the exact same question and she responded something to the effect of why the Democratic Party is now embracing socialism and she talked about the primary voters in the Democratic Party and their support of socialism.

Karen Finney, who is a respected Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst said something like: "This is not true since only one declared Democratic presidential candidate is a Socialist." That person being Senator Bernie Sanders, who is no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress with several Democratic Socialists getting elected to the House last year. He's not even the only Socialist in the Senate, just the only self-described Socialist. which is very different.

CNN's Karen Finney, completely missed the point yesterday ( perhaps intentionally ) about Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party. I realize that socialist and socialism are still scary words within the Democratic Party Leadership and establishment that Finney is part of, because when they think of those two words they remember George McGovern and the McGovernites in the 1970s and the rise of the New-Left in the late 60s and 70s. And all the negative stereotypes that come from being both a Socialist and a Democrat, especially Socialist-Democrat.

But socialist and socialism are not scary words with young Democrats and young Independents who are considering voting Democratic in 2020 and voted Democratic overwhelmingly in 2018.

When your current frontrunner at least as far as your declared presidential candidates is polling at 30% and leads every one else by at least double figures which is what Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is doing right now for 2020, you not just have more than one Socialist in your party, but you have a someone who probably represents 30% of the party if not 1/3 or more than that if the Jill Stein voters were to come out for Senator Sanders next year instead of Dr. Stein, you not only just have more than one Socialist in your party, which is stating the obvious anyway since the Democratic Party has always had Socialists in their party whether they're self-described or not, but you have a socialist faction inside of your party.

The Democratic Party today now has a large block of Democrats including Democratic Socialists voters, who embrace the ideas of Socialists and socialism and want to see those policies put into place in this country. That's just the state of the Democratic Party right now whether the Karen Finney's and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership are ready to acknowledge that or not.

The Atlantic: Adam Harris: 'What's The Deal With Free College?'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- Adam Harris, on so-called free college. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Every day now, it seems, another Democratic candidate announces his or her 2020 presidential run. Among the most popular ideas these hopefuls campaign for is a tuition-free secondary education. “A free-college proposal has practically become an entrance fee,” says writer Adam Harris.

In a new Atlantic Argument, Harris explains that while this is an intriguing idea, it is also a vague and sweeping one, and voters want policy specifics. “The nuts and bolts of education proposals in the 2020 election,” Harris says, “are critical to understanding whether or not, six years from now, the student-debt bubble reaches $2.5 trillion, or even $3 trillion.”

From The Atlantic

From Adam Harris: “Every day now, it seems, another Democratic candidate announces his or her 2020 presidential run. Among the most popular ideas these hopefuls campaign for is a tuition-free secondary education. A free-college proposal has practically become an entrance fee, says writer Adam Harris.

In a new Atlantic Argument, Harris explains that while this is an intriguing idea, it is also a vague and sweeping one, and voters want policy specifics. The nuts and bolts of education proposals in the 2020 election, Harris says, “are critical to understanding whether or not, six years from now, the student-debt bubble reaches $2.5 trillion, or even $3 trillion.”

“What’s the deal with free college?” I believe is the perfect question in this debate, since it’s basically like asking: What the deal with flying trucks?” Since neither exists or ever existed. When you get something for free from wherever it might be, it means you didn’t pay anything for the service that you supposedly received for free. And government is the perfect example of that.

If you’re going to ask, what’s the deal with free college, you better know the answer to: “What’s the deal with taxes?” As well as: “Why do we pay taxes?” And: “Where does government get the revenue to pay for the services that we receive?”

If you already know the answers to these questions, then you know if government starts to not only get into the college financing business, because it’s already there with Adam Harris already explaining that in the video, but if government were to go further and essentially take over the business or be such a player in to that it’s now paying for the college education of every single American who is eligible to go to college in America, you will know how government is paying for everybody’s college education which of course is through taxes. And not just on wealthy people, but for every single American who works for a living.

Government services of course are not free. Even if you’re not working you’ve already paid for the public assistance or retirement that other Americans got when you were working. And if you’re not working right now, but will be in the future you’re paying for the public assistance, or retirement, or unemployment that Americans will receive in the future.

As the great economics professor Milton Friedman once said: “No such thing as a free lunch.” He was referring to the public services that we receive from government that we all pay for. The only way to go to college for free is by winning a college scholarship either through athletics or academics, or have parents or grandparents that can afford to send you to college with their own money. Otherwise you’ll be pay for your college education one way or another. 

Tom Woods: 'Remember When Conservatives Didn't Make You Pull Your Hair Out?'

Source:Player FM- Conservatives or anti-Conservatives?

Source:The New Democrat

"Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you'll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him -- not literally, so don't get your hopes up -- in this episode.  Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

Source:Tom Woods

"Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you'll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him -- not literally, so don't get your hopes up -- in this episode.  Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

This is a great conservation because when I think of Conservatives as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I don't think of people who try to pull my hair out. Maybe that's just me not seeing any Conservatives at my barber shop, ( ha, ha ) but I think of people as a Liberal that I actually have a lot of things in common with. People who are anti-Communist and anti-authoritarian all together, as well as anti-Socialist, but people who believe in not just the republic, but the federal republic and not people who want theocracy regardless of what religion a theocratic government would come from.

Conservatives, actually are people who believe in fiscal responsibility, regardless of what the current Republican Party is saying today. Ass well as a strong, but responsible and limited national defense. Not Neoconservatives who believe that it's the job of America to force democracy on the rest of the world that doesn't currently have it, or believe that deficits don't matter. That expansionist deficits and debt are worth having a strong national defense and that tax cuts pay for themselves. The Lindsay Graham's of the world and other Neoconservatives in Congress who actually believe in this.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of people who believe in limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. who believe in conserving our individual rights and that the best way to do that is to limit governmental power especially at the Federal level and decentralizing governmental power, which is one of the main reasons for having a federal republic unlike a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in the country is centralized in the national government especially with the executive.

The people that Tom Woods was talking about that he was calling Conservatives, aren't actually Conservatives at least when a Republican is President. The so-called Constitutional Conservatives from the Tea Party era from earlier this decade only applied to President Barack Obama. Once President Obama was out of office the Constitution no longer mattered that much to them ( if at all ) except as it related to executive power and believing that the President has the power to do basically anything, just as long as these anti-conservatives ( as I call them ) or Nationalists actually agree with what the President is doing. This is no longer about Constitutionalism or Republicanism when it comes to today's Republican Party, but about short-term partisanship and short-term political convenience.

The reason why we have a Libertarian Party and a Conservative-Libertarian movement today, is because we have a Republican Party that no longer believes in limited government and Constitutionalism. Who now believe that executive essentially has unlimited power just as long as the executive is doing what they want him to do and the executive is a Republican. I believe those are the people that Tom Woods is talking about when he talks about "Conservatives who don't make him want to pull your hair out."

But to me Conservatives are people who would never want me to make me pull my hair out, because they tend to have principles that I agree with. The beliefs in the U.S. Constitution, limited government, individual rights, strong but limited and responsible national defense., and fiscal responsibility. I obviously don't agree with Conservatives on everything as a Liberal, but we once had a strong Conservative-Libertarian movement, that was a great alternative to Liberals and Progressives in America. And I wish the Republican Party would at some point get back to that, especially when there's a Republican in the White House.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Emergencies Do Not Trump The Constitution': Ron Paul- On President Donald Trump's National Emergency

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Using "national emergencies" to rule by diktat is an old and unfortunate tradition among U.S. presidents. It is also unconstitutional."

From Ron Paul Liberty Report

In the United States we have not only separation of powers, but three branches in our national government that all have different roles and responsibilities. Whether they're all equal or not and under the Constitution they're supposed to be, they all have different roles and responsibilities. If the President wants new funding to pay for one of his new priorities or additional funding to an existing program in the government, he has to get that approved by Congress. He can't just pass that new funding and objective on his own. he has to get that approved by House and Senate and sign it into law.

Source:Newsmax- President Donald Trump: "what national emergency?"

I'm not a lawyer and neither is Representative Ron Paul, but just looking at President Trump's so-called national emergency there are at least two obvious problems with looking at it from the outside.

The first one is practical and that the emergency that the President Trump is declaring simply doesn't exist. Not even Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, America One News, or any other right-wing pro-Trump media outlet is reporting that there are millions, thousands, or even hundreds of less of people coming across our southern border right now illegally. If there is any emergency whatsoever as it relates to illegal immigration in America and I don't believe there is one, but the fact that have 10-15 million illegal immigrants in America in a country of 320 million people is certainly an issue that this country has been trying to deal with going back to the Reagan Administration.

President Trump said himself the day that he declared his so-called national emergency that he didn't have to declare right now. I don't know about you and I image everyone would agree with this, but if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Department right away to get the fire put out, because that would obviously be an emergency. Donald Trump ever since he started running for President in the summer of 2015 has been talking about the need for a border wall on our southern border and there is an emergency at the border.

Donald Trump, was elected President a year and a half later after he announced his presidential campaign and has been President for 25 months now and not once until after Republicans lost the House in November 2018, did he either officially declare an emergency at the national border, or send up a bill to the Republican Congress in 2017-18 to get his border wall completed. And you can talk about 60 vote rule in the Senate all you want and that Democrats had 48-49 seats in the Senate during that Congress, but if you're familiar with Congressional spending rules, you know that Congress can pass a spending bill out of the House and Senate with simple majorities in both chambers.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans could've passed a border security bill on their own with just Republican votes both in the House and Senate under reconciliation. But they chose to spend six months on ObamaCare repeal and when they failed there they went to tax cuts where they did pass their tax cuts through reconciliation in the House and Senate. So President Trump seriously has a credibility problem claiming that there is an emergency at the border which is why he declared his national emergency, when he's already admitted that he didn't have to declare his emergency.

The other issue with President Trump's so-called national emergency is constitutional. Congress, not the execute appropriates money for the Federal Government. Congress, has the power of the purse and gets to decide what the government can spend and what they can't spend. Meaning that the executive can only spend money that has already been approved by Congress to spend on the priorities that Congress has approved at the levels that Congress has approved. In other words, Congress decides what the levels of funding are in the budget and where and how that money is spent . Once the President and Congress agree on what levels of funding and where that money is going to be spent by the government, then the Executive has the responsibility to spend and enforce those laws that have already been passed and sign into law.

As much Donald Trump might want to be President of the Russian Federation or the King of the Saudi Kingdom, or lead any other right-wing or any other dictatorship in the world, unfortunately he's the President of the United States and just our problem to deal with. But we still have our checks and balances and separation of powers. Things that every single American gets to learn about when they're in high school. I took U.S. Government as a sophomore in high school. This is not something that we have to read books or listen to documentaries about as adults, but something that we learn in high school and take further courses on in college if we decide to do that, but something that Donald Trump seems to have very little knowledge about or interest in.

The Week: 'Mick Mulvaney- Says Nobody Cares About The Deficit: He Used To Care A lot'

Source:The Week- White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Republicans knew someone would notice if President Trump didn't mention the deficit in his Tuesday State of the Union. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney didn't agree.

When Trump previewed his speech for 20 Republican supporters on Monday, Mulvaney argued that the ballooning deficit didn't need to be included because "nobody cares" about it, ABC News reports. That's not what Mulvaney would've said in his congressional days.

Before Trump tapped him to direct the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney was a congressman from South Carolina. And when he campaigned to earn that spot over Democratic incumbent and House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt, he made deficit reduction his "central policy concern," Politico's Jake Sherman recalls. He continued to complain about the national debt and deficit in his budget chair confirmation hearing in January 2017, but showed a shift that October when the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rolled around.

Ahead of its passage, the Congressional Budget Office concluded the GOP tax overhaul would add $1.46 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Another report concluded that, with an additional round of cuts proposed but not passed the next year, the total could reach $3.2 trillion. Yet Mulvaney defended the GOP's tax reform proposal all the way, telling Fox News in October 2017 that America needed "new deficits" to grow the economy. That earned Mulvaney a dreaded question from host Chris Wallace: "You were a deficit hawk. What happened, sir?"

From The Week 

"It wasn't ok when President Obama's government spending was causing budget deficits, but White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seems to accept deficits now that President Trump's proposed tax cuts might cause them."

Source:CNN- How times have changed 

From CNN

The title of this piece is very important, because before Mick Mulvaney became White House Chief of Staff and even before he was Director of Management and Budget at the White House, he was a U.S Representative from South Carolina and served on the House Budget Committee. It gets  even better than this, because he was part of the 2010 Tea Party House freshman class of 62 new House Republicans that won back the House for Republicans that year.

It gets even better than that, because back then when we had a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit with a Democratic President, House Republicans especially, but the Republican Party as a whole saw the national debt and deficits as big of threats to the United States as they see the People's Republic of China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nuclear Communist Korea. They talked about the dangers of the national debt and saw them as threats to their children and grandchildren's future with all the interest that they would have to pay on the national debt.

Back in the good ole days ( pre-President Donald Trump ) and just the first few years of this decade, Republicans especially House Republicans lead by Minority Leader and later Speaker John Boehner were serious deficit hawks. They made the Committee For a Responsible Budget ( an inside Washington reference ) proud everyday when they talked about the debt and deficit. But there's a catch to all of this, because back then there was a Democratic President named Barack Obama, who the Tea Party viewed as a tax and spend, Un-American Socialist who was ruining their 1950s Ozzie and Harriet America. ( And whether that was racial or not, you be the judge for yourself )

And go up to 2017 and what has changed? Replace a Progressive Democratic President named Barack Obama with a right-wing cultural warrior champion Nationalist President named Donald Trump. And give him a Republican Congress with the House and Senate ( for you American U.S. Government students ) and you now have a Republican President who calls himself the King of Debt. Who appoints a Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin who actually says that deficits don't matter. And a Republican House led by Speaker Paul Ryan who was probably the biggest deficit hawk at least as far as rhetoric during the Obama Administration, especially when he chaired the House Budget Committee, who is only concern with keeping his majority and passing enough legislation ( regardless of how it's paid for ) to keep his majority.

To know that the Tea Party campaign against the national debit and deficit was nothing more than a fraud that was as big as Enron, ( from back in the day ) go back to what they were saying about those issues then when Mick Mulvaney was Republican Mick Mulvaney and go up today with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party and what he and they say about the debt and deficit today. They claimed to care about those fiscal issues when there was a Democratic President and don't give a damn ( to be nice ) about those issues today. But only because now we have a Republican President who doesn't care about those issues. As well as a spineless House and Senate Republican caucus, who doesn't care about those issues either.

Lew Rockwell: Bionic Mosquito: 'Liberalism and Christianity: Liberal Christianity'

Source:Disqus- Christian-Conservatives vs. Christian Liberals. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (EvKL) examines what he calls “Real Liberalism” in chapter 13 of this book. I think it is worthwhile to capture his understanding of this political and economic philosophy.

Let us look at the verbal meaning. The root is liber (“free”). The term liberalis (and liberalitas) implies generosity in intellectual and material matters.” 

From Lew Rockwell

Liberalism and Christianity implies at least that they're two different things when the fact is there's a fundamentalist and even theocratic version of Christianity way over on the Right, the Christian-Right in America represents that movement. There's a social democratic version of Christianity way over on the Left, that has been lead by people like Reverend Martin L. King, Reverend Jesse and many other left-wing preachers. And there is a liberal version of Christianity that is less government centric than the social democratic version and even the fundamentalist version. That is more about treating people the way you would want to be treated. About respect and earning the respect of others by how you treat people. 

As someone who is not a Christian of any sect or a member of any other religious sect, but who is also not an Atheist, but an Agnostic I actually agree with some of the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill: meaning we shouldn't take innocent lives.

Thou shalt not steal: any moral person can agree that theft and burglary are wrong and immoral.

The Golden Rule is not a Ten Commandment, but it's a great rule and gets back to one of my points about Liberal Christianity having to deal with respect which is do unto others as you would have done to you. Treat people the way you want them to treat you. Don't live life thinking you're superior to everyone else and that it should be someone else's honor just to be in your presence. And therefor you can get away with being a jerk ( to be generous ) around other people simply because you're better than them and they don't want to lose you.

Live and let live: here's a moral value that Liberals and Libertarians at least can fall in love with. Also goes to Economics Professor Walter Williams broader definition of property rights which also goes to the liberal value of free choice. Which is free people should be aloud to live freely and don't need big government trying to manage their personal affairs for them and telling them how they should live. Short of hurting innocent people with our personal freedom and choices.

Goes back to two of the Ten Commandments that I mentioned earlier which are thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal. Add thou shalt not abuse others either physically or verbally. Thou shalt not rape would be another good example of this. Thou shalt not hurt innocent people with what they're doing especially children and women. The second one some might believe is sexist, but so what.

I'm not a Christian of any sect, but someone with my liberal values could get into a liberal version of Christianity instead of Christians trying to use government to manage people's lives for them and punish people simply because of how they communicate or what they do with their personal times and lives because they see those choices as immoral. Or the Christian-Left, trying to turn government into some national charity and perhaps even replacing charity with some national welfare or charity state using it to take care of the poor by taxing the rich, instead of using government to empower the less-fortunate to be able to take care of themselves. If there was a Liberal-Christian sect like I mentioned, I could become a Christian myself.

The Atlantic: David Frum: President Trump's Attorney General: 'A Flaw in American Democracy'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- The Atlantic's editor David Frum. 

Source:The New Democrat

What President Donald Trump, doesn't seem to understand, unaware of, or could simply care less ( and that might be putting it lightly ) is that even though he's the most powerful and ranking officer in his latest business investment and new company that the rest of us call the United States Government, he doesn't own it.

Source:ABC News- President Trump's temporarily acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker 

President Trump, is accountable to not only the voters, but Congress and the Judiciary as well. If he were still the President of the Trump Organization and he wanted to appoint a lackey because he was worried about current and incoming government investigations of his company and he didn't want to turn over key company documents to the government and he wanted a Trump loyalist to be his General Counsel of the company, he could do that because the TO doesn't have Board of Directors ( known as the U.S. Senate at the Federal level ) and no one would probably even say anything about that.

Source:VOX- President Donald Trump and company 

If President Trump, wants a Trump loyalist to be his Attorney General or even acting AG who has never worked in the Trump Administration before, he could do that, but for that person to take that job he would have to be approved by the Board of Directors also known as the U.S. Senate. He has a Republican Senate now and in January he'll have a Republican Senate again in the next Congress with perhaps two more seats than they have right now. And they could approve Matt Whitaker or Chris Kovach or anyone else to be the new Attorney General, because they're in the majority and Senate Democrats wouldn't be able to block the appointment just by themselves.

I'm not a lawyer and I've never even played one either on TV or played the part in some play let alone on some talk show or movie and I'm not going to pretend to a lawyer constitutional or otherwise here, but the law and Constitution regarding the appointment process here is very clear. If the President wants to appoint someone on an acting basis even to be full a cabinet level position who has never served in his administration before, like Attorney General which also just happens to be one of the 3-5 most important and most powerful jobs not just in the U.S, Government, but perhaps anywhere in America as well, the President needs to send that confirmation up to the Senate for their advice and consent. If the Senate approves the nominee, the President gets that nominee for that position. If the Senate votes that person down, it's back to the drawing board.

Donald Trump, either as President or as a one-reality show about his own narcissism ( also known 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at The White House ) is an example of how bad a shape that social studies is in America and Americans lack of knowledge about how their own government works. And a great example of why Americans are viewed as dumb to the rest of the West and developed world. President Trump has this wild idea that he can basically do whatever the hell he wants regardless of what the law and Constitution says, just as long as his defenders in Congress and the Judiciary backs him up. And American government is just not supposed to work that way.
Source:The Atlantic

Sargon of Akkad: Interviewing Steve Bannon- Bannonism: The Revolt of The Little Guy

Source:Sargon of Akkad- The Steve Bannon interview. 

Source:The New Democrat

This is a good way to talk about Nationalists and nationalism, because they're Nationalists and then are Nationalists. Similar to there are Socialists and then are Socialists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis and not all Socialists are Communists. As someone who is not a Socialist or Communist and strongly dislikes both, I would tell you Steve Bannon is a Nationalist, but in the best sense. As someone who loves his country ( in this case America ) and believes his number job is to look out for America and stand up for America regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or does about that.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Steve Bannon 

Steve Bannon, comes from a small town, blue-collar mindset which is now a solid percentage of the Republican Party now with most big city and big metro Americans either Democrats, Independents, or right of center Republicans especially on economic and foreign policy, but want nothing to do the Nationalists and Christian-Right when it comes to social policy.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Interviewing Steve Bannon 

And Nationalists in the Bannon sense not the Nazi or right-wing Socialist sense, view people that they see as the elite who went to the top Northeast schools in America and come from money and probably inherited a good deal of money, who've worked in and out of government and when they're not doing that they're working for think tanks or professors at elite colleges, Bannon Nationalists view people of this background as the problem with America.

Bannon Nationalists, view elitists as people who looked down on people who physically work hard for a living, work hard just to pay their bills and mortgages, who don't live in or outside of a big city like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc, people who frankly wanted Hillary Clinton for President who Hillary represents.

The 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was essentially blue-collar Nationalists represented by Trump. And white-collar elitists represented by Clinton. A big reason why Trump defeated Clinton, is because the Clinton elitist wing of the country was in charge for America for a very long time. And the Trump blue-collar folks felt left behind and believed they were losing their America. Some would argue that part of that had to do with cultural, racial, and ethnic reasons and I would agree with that as well.

To say this is not your father's Republican Party anymore, would be like saying that if you jumped in a lake there is a high percentage that you'll get wet in the water. It would be one of the worst cases of stating the obvious since it was announced that water is wet. The country club Republican Party that were Conservatives and in some cases Progressives even that were primarily interested in economic and foreign policy, is still around, but on life support in the Republican Party. Today's Republican Party is based in the South and small town Midwest and rural America in general. And that's what the Steve Bannon's of the world represent in American politics.
Source:Sargon of Akkad

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Republicans Responsibility For Socialism's Comeback'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S, Representative Dr. Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 

Source:The New Democrat 

"According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey, 70 percent of Americans, including about 50 percent of Republicans, support Medicare for all, the latest incarnation of single-payer health care. Republican support for a health plan labeled “Medicare for all” is not surprising considering that Republican politicians support Medicare and that one of their attacks on Obamacare was that it would harm the program. Furthermore, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation — the Part D prescription drug program — occurred under a conservative president working with a conservative Congress." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I think the way I would look at this would be to go back to George W. Bush's Administration. where Republicans with help from Congressional Democrats expanded the Federal role in public education in 2002. And then instead of reforming Medicare in 2003 a Republican Congress with some help from Senate Democrats and no help from House Democrats, expanded Medicare in 2003 with the prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

I'm not calling President George W. Bush a Socialist, but to argue that he was a Conservative doesn't sound right either. He expanded the Federal Government almost across the board except when it came to the regulatory state where his administration almost had an hands off approach when it came to government regulations of the economy. And you could argue that Ayn Rand approach to government regulations contributed to the 2008 financial crisis that lead to the Great Recession, with the Bush Administration being asleep at the wheel while American banks and investors were making irresponsible investments on Wall Street that they couldn't cover the losses for.

I believe the real reasons why socialism is making a comeback in America, has to do with President George W. Bush and his handling of the economy that you could at least argue is at least partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and young Americans getting stuck with the bill for that economic collapse and finding themselves either with college diplomas, but are unable to find jobs that makes them financially independent or having to work multiple jobs just to pay their bills. Along with have college loans that they can't pay back that are eating away at their income.

And then you have people like Senate Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) come along and make all sorts of promises of government being able to do this and that for the people and all of these new government services and expansion of current government services are going to be free and young naive people thinking that sounds cool ( or awesome ) to them and they get behind someone like a Senator Sanders and back his message of socialism.

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

Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck: The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

Source:Libertarianism.Org- The perfect title for this piece.

Source:The New Democrat

If there is a moral collapse of Evangelical America, it can be summed up in two words, which are Donald Trump. I'm talking about the political wing of the Christian-Right in America who are dominated by Evangelicals who base their political on their interpretations of the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. And they see Donald Trump who just a few years ago was an Atheist or at best an Agnostic where religion had little if no impact on his life until he became a Presbyterian a few years ago, the Christian-Right sees Donald Trump and his presidency as their ticket to accomplish a lot of things that they couldn't do with really any other Republican President ever.

The Christian-Right, has made a bargain with devil ( so to speak ) with Donald Trump and have calculated that they're willing to tolerate anything that Donald Trump does all his bad personal behavior, maturity, temper, hate for any dissent against him, lack of experience and knowledge about the issues that he talks so much about and has to deal with as President, his bigotry towards people who don't support him and have decided to sum up all of President Trump's bad behavior into, "he's not a typical politician and does things differently."

And the Christian-Right have just swallowed President Trump's talking points when it comes to negative news about him into saying, "well, we don't know these things are true." Or "well, these Republicans even who don't like Donald Trump are just saying these bad things about him, because they're part of the establishment and are simply trying to defend that." Just as long as President Trump delivers on what he promised the Christian-Right. And appoints judges and justices that will one day will rule that abortion, and same-sex marriage are illegal, and there's no constitutional right to privacy even under the 4th Amendment. Which would be mean big government could then come into Americans personal lives and decide who Americans can sleep with and do with their personal time.

The Christian-Right-Wing of the Republican Party, that back in the 1990s saw pornography, same-sex marriage, and adultery, as threats to national security and morality and therefor must be outlawed in America, are now saying that they don't care about those things at least when it comes to the people they support politically. Adulterous affairs and pornography that their Republicans might have been involved with are none of the government's business, because these Republicans are their people and on their side. And because of this have lost all of their credibility when it comes to speaking about the personal lives and personal behavior of Americans including politicians, because they back and defend politicians who've lived similar lives and have done similar things. Whether it;'s adultery, pornography, or whatever it may be.
Source:Libertarianism.Org