Thursday, May 31, 2012

AP: Raw Video- 'U.S. House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Representative Phil Gingrey (Republican, Georgia) presiding over the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women’s votes.” 

From the Associated Press 

I would never get an abortion myself (and not just because I’m a man, which makes that biologically impossible) because even if I didn’t want the baby, I prefer options like adoption over aborting potential human lives.

And I sure as hell would never abort a fetus because I didn’t like the gender of the baby. If gender equality (which is what leftists used to claim to care about) means anything, you don’t abort fetuses simply because of the fetuses gender.

But to pass a law out of Congress (even if it’s just in the House) banning abortions because the parents don’t like the gender of the baby, I mean you can say that they’re stupid for doing that, crazy even, but to put them in prison for simply being crazy idiots and perhaps their crazy idiot doctor for doing that, looks like Big Government with way too much free time on his hands, living such a boring life that he feels the need to tell other people what to do, to fill his time and days. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Associated Press: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney- 'No Military Intervention in Syria'

Source:Associated Press- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, talking about Syria.
"The White House says it remains opposed to military action in Syria, reasoning that would only lead to more carnage."

From the Associated Press

Source:Associated Press- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, talking about Syria.
I’m not going to make the case that the United States can police the World. Actually I believe the opposite is true. I believe we are too involved in many places, especially in the developed world that has the resources to defend themselves. Like Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, but if there’s one thing that America has stood up for over the years, it’s freedom, democracy, self-determination, the rights for individuals to live their own lives. Without being harassed by their own government, human rights.

Basic individual and human rights are the things that people are fighting for over in Syria. That the Assad Regime is so against being the Baathist statists that they are. That they are willing to kill their own people, to prevent them from obtaining those things and as they are doing that. The West as well as the Arab League, is watching them do it and to a certain extent, complaining about how wrong it is and imposing a few sanctions. Which means nothing to an evil dictator, who’s only interested in staying in power. Bashar Assad doesn’t want to serve his people, he’s only interested in ruling over his people and doing whatever it takes to continue to rule over his people.

If you believe liberal democracy is important, actually forget liberal democracy. No one is ever expecting Arabia to be like America. But if you think democracy itself is important, whatever form of democracy it is, then you have to not only be willing to defend it for yourself so you don’t lose it, but assist those who are trying to obtain it for themselves, where you can. Syria like Libya, is an example of where America can help, along with the European Union and the Arab League. Not calling for an American invasion of Syria, we don’t need another Iraq War. We have nine years of experience to prove, the way we went into that doesn’t work.

But we need a coalition to step up and assist the Syrian opposition, at least in the short-term with resources, so they can take the fight to the Assad Regime. And lets see if the Syrian people can take down their own murderous regime themselves. America can’t police the World, we’ve already learned that the hard way, that we simply don’t have the resources to do that. But we can’t afford to stand by and watch the world blow up and see innocent people die, just because they are fighting for their own freedom. Especially since we are a country that’s supposed to think so highly of freedom ourselves. Especially since with all that we’ve paid for freedom ourselves. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Sarah McLachlan: ‘I Will Remember You’

Source:Sarah MacLachlan- seems unforgettable to me.

Source:The Daily Press

“Sarah McLachlan – mv – i will remember you
one of my favs. From her album Rarities, B-sides & Other Stuff (1996)
or you could find it on The Brothers McMullen soundtrack (1995 Seamus Egan Edward Burns)”

"A Nation that does not honor it's heros will not long endure.' President Abraham Lincoln. 
A photo story tribute.
Music by Sarah McLachlan." 

Source:B.A. Coder- honoring our brave heroes who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

From B.A. Coder 

Source:The Daily Press- Happy Memorial Day.
The United States takes one day out of the year officially to remember and celebrate everyone who has served our country in combat and in our services. And the people who gave their lives and health, to serve their country and to protect everything that we value as a country. Which is our freedom, the ability for Americans to live our own lives. 

Memorial Day is not about weekend sales or parties or cookouts or the unofficial start of summer, in at least the Mid Atlantic and Southeast. And the first good opportunity to go to the beach. We just do those things as Americans to celebrate Memorial Day. We use our freedom to do the things, to celebrate Memorial Day, that our veterans have their gives lives and health, to allow us the freedom to, throw a party, go to a party, go to the pool, or go to the beach. 

Memorial Day, isn’t about perhaps the best three-day weekend of the year. It’s about the freedom to celebrate that day and that weekend and about the sacrifices that our veterans have made.

Our veterans have made those sacrifices and are still doing that today, with all of our troops around the world, so we can have the freedom to celebrate that day, those three beautiful hot days. (At least where I live) That we can enjoy, because we have the freedom to enjoy them, because of what our veterans have sacrificed to give us that freedom. 

So as we are celebrating this beautiful great day, going to our cookouts and parties, going to the pool, going to the beach, take at least a moment to see why you are able to do those things and remember that Memorial Day is not Party Day, it’s not Cookout Day, it’s not Beach Day.

What we do to celebrate Memorial Day are things that we do to celebrate and enjoy what is Memorial Day. And that we wouldn’t be able to celebrate Memorial Day if it wasn’t for the sacrifices that our veterans and their families have made so we do the things we do to celebrate Memorial Day. 

I promise this will be the only political thing I say on this post, but if there’s one day that we as Americans can come together and to celebrate, even as divided as a country that we are and have been for a while now, it should be Memorial Day. Because Memorial Day is about celebrating the people who have made it possible. For us to disagree and even be disagreeable with each other as a country. 

Friday, May 25, 2012

Professor Milton Friedman: 'On Taxing The Rich To Help The Poor'

Source:The Republic- Economics Professor Milton Friedman from 1978.

"Milton has little faith the government can effectively tax the rich and help the poor. In fact in this short video you will see why he believes it does the opposite and hurts them. Milton Friedman was the foremost economist of his time and many say one of the best of all time, and most respected." 

From The Republic

With all due respect to the people who put this video together, Professor Friedman is not talking about taxing the rich to help the poor. He's talking about how states fund their state universities. And talking about what he believes we should do instead to fund college in this country. 

If you want me to talk about taxes and how they should be used (if at all) to help low-income people, I'll tell you anyway. I don't believe the problem with America and it's economic system is that we have too many rich people. The opposite is true. We have too many poor people of all racial, ethnic, cultural, and regional backgrounds. 

We have too many people in America who simply lack the skills that they need to do well in life. And as a result they have kids anyway that they're not personally and financially ready to take care of, where in a lot of cases there's no father in the family and they become dependents on the state (meaning taxpayers) just to financially survive in America. 

If you want people to make it in America, not only does everyone need the opportunity and skills to make it in America, but they also need to be incentivized to make it in America. You don't do that by soaking the rich simply to take care of the poor with all sorts of government welfare programs. Because you send two wrong messages there. 

By soaking the rich to take care of the poor, you are telling Americans that if they're successful in this country, big government is going to tax the hell out of you, to take care of people that aren't doing well and lack the skills to be successful in this country. But then you are also telling low-income, low-skilled people that they don't need a good education, good skills, a good work ethic, personal responsibility, to do well in America. Because as long as they're low-income and low-skilled, big government is going to take care of them. 

If you want people to make it in America, you have to incentivized work, education, and success. And for low-income, low-skilled adults, who for whatever reason or reasons don't have the skills to make it in America, yet, you need to empower them to be able to get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job that allows them to be economically independent. 

Government through it's taxpayers can help the poor by not only incentivizing work over Welfare, but allow them to keep their Welfare checks while they're still working, until they're able to make enough money on their own that they're no longer income, which is called subsidized work. But empower them to go back to school while they're working to get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and become economically independent.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Cold Turkey: Sean Penn- 'On Hugo Chavez & Fidel Castro: Hollywood Leftist Support For Socialist Dictators'

Source:The Cold Turkey- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn, on Socialist dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. 
“Sean Penn talks about Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.”

From The Cold Turkey

For the life of me I don't understand why today's so-called Progressives ( radical hippie, Socialists, Communists, in actuality ) love affair or admiration with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Progressives are supposed to be people that are about progress through government action, like democracy and yet they defend people, who are anti-democratic. Who've attempted to centralize power with their presidencies, in President Castro's case, have been successful in doing that. President Chavez's case still trying to do that in the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, still has that official name.
Source: The Nation Magazine- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )
But if President Chavez is successful, they'll basically be another Communist Republic in Latin America. He's already been successful in nationalizing the energy industry, as well as at least certain parts of the media. But Venezuelan Democrats still have media outlets they can go to but in President Castro's case, its official he's had a Communist State in Cuba for over fifty years. This guy is not a democrat and never has been, he's not even a Democratic Socialist, he's a Statist, who wants his people to be subjects of the State. And Hugo Chavez is one of Fidel Castro's biggest admirers.
Source: The Atlantic- President Fidel Castro ( Communist Republic of Cuba ) and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )
So why would Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, people like Sean Penn who I generally have a lot of respect for, respect him more as an actor ( but that's a different story ) be standing up for people who are anti-democratic? First it's Castro, now it's Chavez, who is next President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation? Who's not a Communist but certainly a Statist, who's really a Russian Nationalist.

I can understand why Democratic Socialists would speak highly of European Socialists or Canadian Socialists, but all those people are Democratic Socialists. Those are the people that regressive so-called Progressives like Sean Penn and others should be speaking highly of. Not Communists in Cuba, Venezuela or anywhere else, people who hold their own people down, because they don't want them to be powerful on their own. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez aren't people to be admired, unless you are a Communist.

Now so-called Progressives seem to have this notion that Americans, especially the Federal Government, have no right to criticize people in other countries. Because we aren't perfect, that we can't speak out against voter fraud in Venezuela or anywhere else. Because we have voter fraud in our own country. If that was the rule, then no one would ever be able to criticize anyone else. Because no one is perfect and this would be a very quiet world.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Michael Moore: The Sean Hannity Show- Michael Moore Debating Sean Hannity

Source:Michael Moore- New-Leftist and filmmaker Michael Moore: on Sean Hannity in 2009.
"Here's round two of Michael Moore on The Sean Hannity Show. It was recorded live-to-tape on the same day as round one of the showdown, but Hannity decided to break it into two separate shows. I suppose he likes to take his beatings piecemeal. Enjoy round two of the TV appearance that turned Fox News viewers against Sean Hannity."

Source:Michael Moore

My main issue with Michael Moore is not with his, let's says Socialist politics: he's an American and can believe in anything he wants. My issues with Michael Moore have to do with his candor and honesty: he attacks a system thats benefited him very well. 

Michael Moore comes from a good, working class, community in Michigan, where he went to good schools, including college. Has gotten himself a very good education, worked hard, has been very productive, now owns his own film company. And has become a very wealthy man as a result in the private sector. Government hasn't provided him with his wealth other than his education.

Mr. Moore bashes an economic system that he's benefited from very well and then speaks highly of an economic system in a third world country like the Communist Republic in Cuba, that's a third world country, where the average Cuban makes somewhere around 5k$, compared with the average American, that makes around 50K$ a year. So he's speaking down to an economic system that's benefited hundreds of millions of Americans and speaks in favor of an economic system that's put millions of Cubans in poverty.

You don't see American Leftists moving to Cuba to live there or move to democratic socialist countries in Europe to live there. Even though they speak in high praise of the systems there, Mr. Moore speak in favor of the Cuban system, but then says when asked why are they so poor: "Well, because Cuba is a third world country." Well the simple answer to that is, if the Cuban system is so great, then why are they a third world country: it's really that simple. 

This is my issue with Moore, not about his politics but his candor, bashing a system that's worked so well for him. He can believe whatever he wants but when you make films like this, like praising Cuba and the Cuban system, that's a third world country (by the way) and then bashing the American system, that he's benefited so well from and thats my whole problem with Michael Moore, is his honesty.

There's that old saying that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. And that saying is so old because it's said so many times and this saying fits very well with Michael Moore and why I don't take most of the things that Michael Moore says seriously. It's rare that I agree with Sean Hannity on anything, as often as Jews hug Arabs and vice-versa. But Hannity is correct when he say that Michael "trashes a system that he's benefited from."

Monday, May 21, 2012

Associated Press: 'Nato Protestors Target Boeing'

Source:Associated Press- Occupy Wall Street, vs Boeing.
"Demonstrators launched another round of protests Monday in the final hours of the NATO summit, targeting Boeing headquarters and a suburban community that could become the site of a detention facility to hold illegal immigrants."

From the Associated Press 

There have been really dumb political slogans in America. I guess that’s what we get for electing and reelecting career politicians over and over as a people. Democracy isn’t always intelligent. But the OWS slogan Eat The Rich is about as dumb of a political slogan that I’ve ever heard. Tax the rich, soak rich, outlaw the rich, I don’t agree with any of them, but at least there’s some thinking going on there.

Source:Occupy Wall Street- apparently Occupy Wall Street was so hungry on this day, that they were going to try cannibalism as to cure income inequality. LOL

Occupy Wall Street announced last week or a few weeks ago, that they were planning I guess what would be a spring offensive. And we’ve seen evidence of that already with their marches in Chicago this weekend, not just going after Wall Street, but now Boeing. They are mad as hell at corporate America and perhaps American capitalism all together and aren’t going to take it anymore. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies.

It’s not just Wall Street that they are pissed off at, but now corporate America as a whole and perhaps anyone who’s wealthy and part of the 1% in America. That they don’t see as progressive, but my question is what do they expect to get out off all of this other than venting on American capitalism. Do they believe any of the marches where their members get arrested for holding up traffic and disturbing the peace, do you think that comes across well with anyone, who can make a difference. And what they are trying to accomplish, putting a freeze on American capitalism, in order to buy time for them to install whatever they want to replace it with in the future.

Leftists lets say, people who are further left than FDR Progressives and JFK liberal New Democrats, like to complain and bitch. And a lot of times only seem happier, or not as depressed when they have something to bitch about. There is a term for people like this and Democrats like this that was popular in the 1980s. Doom and Gloom or Doom and Gloomers, people who can only see the empty part of any glass that is not completely full that they try to drink out of. That is what OWS looks like to me. Mental patients that are never happy, always depressed and don’t want to go home.

Then Candidate Obama when he was still a U.S. Senator and running for President in 2008, early went for lets say New-Left or even Far-Left McGovernite Democrats for their support. Which might make up the majority of OWS, to go along with some Progressives and perhaps Libertarians who are pissed off as crony capitalism, but aren’t on board with what Socialists would replace it with. Because then Senator Obama believed that would be the easiest way to the Democratic nomination and to overcome Hillary Clinton, who had the backing of the Democratic Leadership.

But after Candidate Obama secured the Democratic nomination, quickly pivoted to the center and ran as a center-left Liberal or Progressive Democrat in the general election. Like the smart or even slick politician that he is, get Far-Left on board to win the presidential nomination. And then run to the middle so you don’t look crazy yourself and can appeal to Independents. And its pretty obvious he didn’t want to be seen as closely linked to the Far-Left in the Democratic Party who look like nuts or aliens from another planet frankly to Independents as well as Democrats such as myself.

People who live on communes, share a bedroom and perhaps even a bed with complete stranger so everyone has a place to stay and don’t fit in with the country. I have no problem with people being different, hell I’m pretty different myself. But it’s another thing to look like, or even be serious about trying to take down something thats worked very well in this country. Which is private enterprise and education so people have what they need to do well in that economic system.

One thing that OWS is against, a lot of people actually agree with them, which is crony capitalism. But only a fringe of the country wants to replace American capitalism, with democratic socialism. We don’t want to as a country, take apart companies that are very profitable and have produced a lot of good in this country, or nationalize private companies as well. And because of this OWS is just speaking amongst themselves and looking nutty compared with the rest of the country.

You can also see this post on WordPress

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

President Barack Obama: Mitt Romney- ‘I Stand by What I Said Whatever it Was’

Source:President Barack Obama- Mitt Romney: Multiple Choice on All The Key Issues
Source:The Daily Press

“Mitt Romney in February:

“I’m not sure which is worse; him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation”

Does he stand by his comment?

“I’m actually going to –I haven’t, I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was.”

What else does he stand by?

“Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process let it run it’s course and hit the bottom.”

“Let Detroit go bankrupt.”

“I will repeal Obamacare and I’ll kill it dead on it’s first day.”

“Governor Romney, if you don’t deport them, how do you send them home?”

Mitt Romney:
“Well the answer is self-deportation”

“Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.”

“Corporations are people my friend.”

“I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

“I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was.”

Mitt Romney: “I stand by what I said, whatever it was.” 

This is the number one problem that Mitt Romney has going for him, that he’s a multiple personality presidential candidate. That if his real name was Flip Flopper, no one who knows who he is or has some idea who he is, would have no problem believing that. The line: “I stand behind what I said, whatever it was”, could be Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan. Standing behind something you said and not even knowing what you said.

That would be like saying something in a bar when you were drunk and you can’t even remember anything from that night. And you said a bunch of things and someone who was at the bar, holds you to that statement and you tell them: “Well, I stand behind that. Even though I have no memory of actually saying that.”

President Obama has a problem, but I guess it’s a good problem, which Mitt Romney does he run against and he’ll see more than one in this presidential campaign. But for President Obama, does he run against Liberal Mitt from 1994, Moderate Mitt from 2002, Religious-Conservative Mitt from 2007-08, Neoconservative Mitt from this years Republican primaries, or whatever Mitt decides to run for President in the general election.

President Obama, could say: “I kinda like the Mitt from 2002-04, the successful businessman, big believer in economic freedom. Liberal and tolerant on social issues.” Which is how Northeastern Republicans tend to be, but he could also use that Mitt against whatever Mitt we see in 2012. And he could tell Mitt: “You know, I kinda like that guy from 1994 and 2002, whatever happened to that guy?”

Independent voters would like the Massachusetts Mitt as well. And Mitt if he answered the question honestly, which is about as likely as Pat Robertson coming out for same-sex marriage, would say: “Oh, that Mitt is still there, I just keep him hidden, when I’m around the Tea Party who hate that Mitt and see him as an Un-American Socialist.”

Imagine that a successful businessman whose a Socialist, that’s today’s Republican Party for you. Please someone bring back Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan. Those guys seem completely reasonable to today’s GOP.

I’ve said this for over a year now, the best thing that President Obama has going for him, is his competition or lack of it. With enemies like this, who needs friends, they would be the best members all of them, of the Obama Reelection Committee. Working for the President behind the backs of the GOP. Like Democratic espionage agents, screwing the GOP. And Mitt Romney is the leader of this pack. 

Friday, May 18, 2012

Minister Malcolm X: 'You Are Afraid To Bleed!'

Source:Quaddeth- Perhaps the original Black Power Leader, Minister Malcolm X.
"Please listen to this and give me your opinions, tell me how it makes you feel."



Source:See Black Power- Minister Malcolm X in the 1960s.

From See Black Power

All Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves to the point that they stop that threat. Doesn’t mean they have the constitutional right to kill someone, exactly. But to stop the threat that’s opposing them. Which is what I would like to believe is the message that Malcolm X was trying to convey to African-Americans. But I know better than that and he was trying to tell them to take it a step farther. When racist law enforcement were abusing African-Americans for protesting, even peacefully, he wanted the people to physically fight back, even if that meant getting a big beating and ending up in jail.

Where Martin L. King was saying:“don’t fight back physically. We have just as much of a constitutional right to free speech and assembly. We are more than within our rights here. And if we are attacked, it’s the racist law enforcement that’s breaking the law. And should be arrested and filling the jail cells of the peaceful civil rights protesters. Not the protesters themselves.”

Martin King’s message, was more about unity, not just uniting African-Americans, but the country as a whole, to bring non-African-Americans into the movement, to make it look like a mainstream movement that it became, where you saw all the civil rights legislation that was passed in the 1960s. So the civil rights movement couldn’t be portrayed, “as a bunch of unhappy Negro’s, looking for special rights and are people who are un-American and need to be stopped.”

Similar, but different in a way that gay Americans are being debated against today as well. Even though I don’t see both movements as equal, but both important. I see people fighting for civil rights, so they aren’t discriminated based on their race, ethnicity, or gender as more important than people being discriminated based on their sexuality. But that’s something worth debating about, I’ve had this debate between a friend of mine who is gay.

Malcolm X’s main contribution to the civil rights movement, at least as I see it, was advocating for self-reliance and freedom for African-Americans. So they can live their own lives in freedom and not be harassed by government. And not have to live off of public assistance and be trapped in poverty. He would’ve made a hell of a Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat today. And based on these notions, I actually have more respect for him than Dr. King. Because of what he was trying to accomplish for African-Americans, was long-term. Which is to empower them to get out of poverty. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Minister Malcolm X: 'The American Nightmare'

Source:See Black See Power- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, in the 1960s.

From See Black See Power

What Malcolm X was laying out in this speech, was what Africans-Americans have gone through since they were given their freedom and no longer slaves. And what they’ve gone through, since being free as slaves. All the racial discrimination that followed them, since being free.

Minister Malcolm was also telling African-Americans, not to fall in love with the Democratic Party. Which was a very important message especially in the 1960s. When the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party, had so much power in Congress. The so-called Dixiecrats, that could kill legislation on their own to the point had it not have been for Congressional Republicans, (Progressive  Republicans in that party) the civil rights bills of 1964, 65 and 68 do not get past. Because the Southern Caucus would’ve blocked them. Dixiecrats, today are now Southern Republicans, religious and Neo-Confederate Republicans. So he was telling his community, don’t fall in love with the Democratic Party. Because they haven’t done a hell of a lot for you.

Malcolm X’s, message about not falling in love with one party was not only very important back in the 1960s, but probably just as important today. Because once you put all of your eggs in one basket ( so to speak ) you can be taken advantage of. Because the party can take the attitude: “why do we have to respond to their concerns. Why do we even have to listen to them, where do they have to go without us. Are they going to become Republicans, a party that’s lost the African-American vote overwhelmingly the last twenty years or so"

It’s really President Reagan, who was the last Republican President, that could win any substantial votes in this community, with his two landslide victories in 1980 and 84. The problem with the Republicans Party, is that they’ve become the Dixiecrats and haven’t given the African-Americans much incentive to vote for them since the 1960s.

African-Americans like any other community needs to have choices in who to vote for. The Democratic Party now monopolizes this community because they’ve reached out to them. And we now finally have an African-American President. But Africans-Americans tend to be somewhat conservative on social issues, especially in the South. And believe in things like small business and being self-reliant. Not being forced to live off of public assistance. And the GOP hasn’t done much to take advantage of that to their loss. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Monday, May 14, 2012

CSPAN: In Depth With R. Emmett Tyrell (2011)

Source:CSPAN- interviewing right-wing author Emmett Tyrell.
"R. Emmett Tyrrell is author of nine books:

Public Nuisances (1979); The Liberal Crack-Up (1984); The Conservative Crack-Up (1992); Boy Clinton: The Political Biography (1996); The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton: A Political Docu-Drama (1997); Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (2004); The Clinton Crack-Up (2008); The Best of the American Spectator's The Continuing Crisis: As Chronicled for Four Decades by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (2009); After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery (2010).

He is also editor of The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain (1977); The Report on Network News' Treatment of the 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidates (1973); and Orthodoxy: The American Spectator's 20th Anniversary Anthology (1987)." 


Emmett Tyrell is correct in one aspect about liberalism, that so-called Progressives (who are Democratic Socialists, in actuality) have co-opted liberalism to make it look like what they call progressivism, which is really a form of socialism. Which is same thing thats common in Canada and Europe which is a political ideology thats centered around centralized, national government. With the theory being that we give a lot of power to the national government to take care of the people through high taxes.

So-called Progressives can be somewhat liberal on social issues. At least for women and gays and to some extent what people should be allowed to see in entertainment. People who would call themselves Socialist Liberals. Some so-called Progressives describe their politics as Progressive Libertarian or Socialist Libertarian. Progressive or socialist on economic policy and even foreign policy, but liberal on social issues. But these people aren't Liberals, but Democratic Socialists, with some liberal views on some key social issues. 

There are also so-called Progressives that are statist on come social issues as well, like gun rights, hate speech, and even pornography to a certain extent. And believe in things like progressive class's. That government should give special attention to certain populations in our society. But these aren't liberal values, these are collectivist values.

It's not just so-called Progressives that have co-opted liberalism, that has given liberalism an inaccurate description and definition of what it really is. Which is about individual liberty, limited government and equal of opportunity, equal rights, and other things. But hyper-partisan right wingers so-called Conservatives, who've spent forty years attacking liberalism. And trying to make it look like socialism and to a certain extent they've had a lot of success with that. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this and how they've falsely described liberalism as well. The way they've falsely attacked President Obama and other Democrats, but this is now changing.

As I've argued before, this idea of the "Death of Liberalism" the claim that Emmett Tyrell has made. First of all, I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud of it, the link of this blog is People who really are Liberals, are believers in liberal democracy and all the individual rights and guarantees, that come from our Constitution. Which might be the most liberal document ever written. People who are the real Liberals in America, would be Center-Right in Europe, and Britain, perhaps Canada. 

The modern Democratic Party is now a modern Center-Left (not Far-Left) progressive (not social democratic) party, that still has a Center-Right faction in it, that I'm part of. You could say that the Liberal Democrats today are the real Conservative Republicans, because the Christian-Right and Tea Party, Populist, Nationalists, have taken over what was once the Grand Ole Party in America. But Liberals aren't Socialists, if anything they're the opposite of people who are even Social Democrats. 

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Barack Obama: Happy Mother's Day- The Day We Celebrate Our Wonderful Mom's

Source:President Barack Obama- Welcome to the Obama Family.
Source:The Daily Press

"He shares why First Lady Michelle Obama is the best mom he knows, how his mom and grandmother influenced him, and how the model of strong, responsible, and loving women have been a great gift to his daughters."

From President Barack Obama

Source:The Daily Press- Happy Mother's Day.
I’ll try to not make this blog sound political and I’ll do my best. But keep in mind I’m a political junky, so take that for what its worth. Why would you take a whole day out of the year to do that. How about celebrating mother’s everyday? Well what they don’t understand is that we do that it’s just that we take a day out of each year, to make that day even more special for our mother’s than every other day of the year, except for maybe their birthday. To celebrate the women who gave us birth, who helped raise us up and in many cases, raised us on their own, or help from their parents. Because with out our mothers, we would’ve never been born. They not only gave us our lives, but gave us our births and played a big role in who we are.

I know this from personal experience and I know my brother’s would say the same thing. What I can say about my own mom, is as a kid, she would try to get me to do things she knew I didn’t like and would never do on my own. Like with the piano, not because she was trying to punish me or something, but because she wanted me to try new things. Experience things outside of my comfort level, to see what the World looks like outside of my own. My mom is very sweet and very intelligent, you don’t always see that verbally. As far as her expressing her feelings, but you see it in what she does for you and how she treats you. She’s always wanted you to be your best, whatever that is. One of the reasons why she sent me to summer camp, year after year as a kid, to help me be the best student I could be and learn new things and meet new people.

And then Mom sent me to basketball camp, so I could be a better basketball player. And perhaps to get me out of the house as well. She would put me in activities, that yes I would enjoy, but would enjoy learning about whatever it is we were doing. When I think of my mom, it’s what she tried to get out of me. Without her I’m not blogging, because I probably wouldn’t have considered writing at all. Because she’s my best critic and my best friend when it comes to my blogging. Because she tells me where I’m doing well and what I need to improve on. Which is exactly what I want and need, which is exactly what she did today. About a blog I wrote yesterday, she’s a professional editor and a damn good one. And I appreciate that and everything else she’s done for me. Happy Mother’s Day to all you mom’s, especially my own. Love you mom!

Saturday, May 12, 2012

The Onion: 'Minnesota Braces For The Return of Michele Bachmann'

Source:The Onion- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) announcing that she's returning to the hospital to get the full-attention that she deserves. Actually, I have no idea what the hell she's talking about here.

Source:The Daily Press

“A fight kind of runs out of steam 15 seconds in, George Washington laments that his vision of the future has not been realized, and Philip Morris releases its new line of Marlboro PM cigarettes. It’s the week of January 9th, 2012.” 
From The Onion 

The State of Minnesota has had five months to recover from the return of Representative Michele Bachmann, who thank God doesn’t represent the whole state, only 600K or so Minnesotans have to put up with her. And a lot of those people are mental patients, which is Representative Bachmann’s base of support, being that she’s one of them, just on the lam. You would think that she would be easy to track down, seeing that she’s a U.S. Representative who works in Congress. But that’s perhaps a different story. 

I thought I would give a status report on the damage that Representative Bachmann has caused. Report what’s she been saying and then report on what’s actually been happening. 

This week Representative Bachmann endorsed Mitt Romney for President and within five minutes of that, Governor Romney’s polls with Independents plummeted and he lost ten points. The Flip Flopper in Chief, managed to bring those numbers back by supporting a constitutional amendment to make same-sex Marriage the law of the land. Which won him support with the homosexual community, something that only Mitt Romney can do. Being that he has a clones of himself.

In other news Representative Bachmann announced that there isn’t a Republican War on Women. Five minutes later she came out for a law that would ban women from the workforce. Her husband Marcus Bachmann also came out of the closet and supports Governor Romney’s constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage the law of the land as well. He also endorsed Mitt, but endorsed his clone Mitt, the liberal Mitt by accident. So the liberal Mitt picked up points in the homosexual community as well. Which doesn’t do much good for the real Mitt, whoever that person is.

The real Mitt is MIA and there’s an all points bulletin now to try to track down the real Mitt. Officials believe they know what the real Mitt looks like. They’ve seen pictures of him and have talked to Mitt’s other clones. Neoconservative Mitt, Moderate Mitt and Conservative Mitt. But have been unable to track down the real Mitt so far.

The Onion: Andrea Barret & Piper Cahill- 'Mitt Romney: To Travel Back in Time to Kill Liberal Versions of Himself'

Source:The Onion- a 2012 Romney For President campaign rally, that was held somewhere in the United States. Sorry, but that's as least specific as I can be right now.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Seeking to dispel accusations of flip-flopping, Romney unveiled plans to use a time machine to kill earlier versions of himself who believed in universal health care and gay rights."

From The Onion 

This just in from the Romney Campaign: “America doesn’t want consistency when it comes to their politicians, otherwise they would vote for honest people to represent them. Therefor we’re announcing the Romney For America Time Machine that will allow Governor Romney to travel back in time to change any positions from the past, that might be unpopular today. Thank you.”

Source:The Onion- Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney (understandable mistake) announcing the Romney For America Time Machine, that will allow Governor Romney to travel back in time to change whatever positions that he may have had in the past, that might be unpopular with the right-wing base of the Republican Party today. You heard this first from The Onion.

Imagine if Mitt Romney could travel back in time to change more liberal positions he use to have, that me as a Liberal respect. Like when he supported civil unions for same-sex couples just six years ago. Just one position that has pissed off the Christian Right when he was Governor of the Democratic State of Massachusetts. Or back in 1994 and I’m guessing even before that, when he was running for U.S. Senate against Senator Ted Kennedy. Being pro-choice on abortion, or back in 2005-06, signing the twin brother or sister of the Affordable Care Act. Better known as ObamaCare.

But telling the difference between ObamaCare” and RomneyCare, is like telling the difference between the Olsen twins, seeing them for the first time. Or better yet imagine if Mitt could clone himself, when he’s running in Massachusetts. He’s the Liberal Mitt, when he’s running for president in a Christian-Conservative GOP. He’s a more Conservative Mitt, but not far enough for the Far Right. That he scares off independent voters, which is where he is right now.

If Mitt could clone himself, he would be the perfect unbeatable politician: Liberal on social issues, conservative on economic policy. Keeps your taxes and spending down, somewhere in between depending on if he listens to himself, or his clone. On foreign policy, he would be exactly where independent voters are. The Christian-Right, would hate him because he’s not trying to tell Americans how to live their lives. Socialists would hate him because he’s not spending every dollar Uncle Sam takes in, or increasing taxes on everyone. But if this were 1988 or 1980, the Romney Campaign wouldn’t even have to consider creating a time machine, or cloning Mitt. Because this is where the Republican Party use to be politically.

The GOP, so much liberal or classically conservative on social issues, pre-Christian-Right, but took the attitude that government shouldn’t be telling Americans how to live their lives. Which is actually conservative politics as well. Could the time machine be Mitt Romney’s secret weapon to winning the presidential election? What happens after he’s nominated by the GOP and sees independent voters that liked his liberal positions on social Issues? Wait! It’s a time machine, so he would be able to go back in time and delete his ass-kissing of Christian-Right Voters in the Republican primaries. A time machine would be a hell of a secret weapon, if only it existed. The problem is Mitt is stuck with whoever he is. At times its hard to tell with his flip-flopping. I’m not sure even he knows who he is at this point.  

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

VOA News: Henry Ridgewell- 'Greek Leftists Seek Coalition, Reject EU Austerity'

Source:VOA News- talking about the Greek fiscal crisis.
“Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster. It is the largest[2] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[3][4] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people.

VOA was established in 1942,[5] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[6] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[7] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.” 

From Wikipedia 

“The leader of Greece’s leftist Syriza party is beginning talks with other parties on forming a coalition government to reject what he calls “barbaric” austerity measures imposed by the European Union. Voters failed to give any party a majority in Sunday’s election, plunging Greece into more uncertainty. As Henry Ridgwell reports for VOA, the result is part of a wave of anti-austerity feeling that is building momentum in Europe.” 

From VOA News

With Socialists making a comeback in France, Greek Socialists now see an opportunity to throw their wait around in Greece. A country, thats buried in debt, (making the American debt look like peanuts) thats in the process of being bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Which is being led by Germany right now that has a Conservative led government.

If Greece takes strict austerity measures, which is a big if because the Hellenic Republic of Greece, is essentially a Socialist State, where their welfare state is very popular, so making steep cuts in their welfare state, is not very popular. As their current government is finding out and as we’ve seen from the protests there. Greece is now headed for new Parliamentary elections to hopefully for them, to form a new government that can get its economy going again and get its debt and deficit under control.

The main two political parties in Greece, are the Socialist Party of course and the New Republic Party. Which would be like the Conservative Party in Britain. The Socialists obviously being against austerity and the Republicans will try to push it.

If the Greeks don’t want to have to accept the demands of the European Union in resolving its debt and fixing its economy, as condition of receiving a bail out from European taxpayers, then they should fix their own problems. Resolve their  own crisis.

And the Greek people should make a decision: do they want the Socialists, or the Republicans to do this and give them the power to do it. But I don’t see the European Union, even with the Socialists now in power in France (the 2nd largest State in the EU) continuing to give money to a country that continues to spend their money without serious reforms.

If Greece doesn’t want to meet the demands of the EU, especially being run by Conservatives, they should elect a Socialist Government to resolve their own problems. Otherwise elect a Conservative Government and meet the demands of the EU, or negotiate new conditions.

What Greece is going through right now, is similar to what America is going through where the countries are divided down the line. And doesn’t like either party enough, to give them enough power to run the country. So they shift back in forth in America, between Democrats and Republicans. In Greece between Republicans and Socialists. And only the people of these countries can figure these things out for themselves. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Associated Press: 'Partisan Student Loan Fight Moves to Senate'

Source:Associated Press- Sarah Binder also studies the U.S. Congress for the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"The Senate plans to vote Tuesday on whether to start debate on a Democratic plan to keep some college loan interest rates from doubling on July 1." 

From the Associated Press 

I don't want to make light of the student loan debate in Washington, because it's a really serious issue. But this problem on policy grounds is actually very easy to solve. It's just the partisan politics that get in the way. 

Republicans don't want to do anything about it and if they do something about it, they're going to have to get something in return that their Far-Right really wants, that has nothing to do with this issue, like eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, or eliminating some prevision of the Affordable Care Act. 

Democrats simply want to raise taxes on either wealthy individuals or corporations or both, to pay for students loans. That's obviously not going to fly with Congressional Republicans. 

So as result, American college students and college ready students get screwed in the process, because Republicans and Democrats can't play nice and work together. 

The easy policy (not political) solution to this problem would solve the issue and would actually be pretty easy to get done. As Professor Milton Friedman (and every other economist who actually understands economics) has said, there's no such thing as a free lunch. To get anything substantial in life, you have to pay for it yourself, one way or another. 

As much as left-wing Democrats might want to talk about what they call free college or tuition college, they might as well talk about the end of poverty and bigotry everywhere in the world, perhaps a cure for cancer by the end of the week. They live in Fantasyland, if they actually believe in free college. Anything that comes from government of course is not free for anyone who receives those services. 

What we can do is have college affordability for everyone whose qualified to go to college in America, including high school students, but working adults who want to or need to go back to school to get additional skills, especially if they're currently long-term unemployed or working part-time now thanks to the Great Recession. 

My simple policy, but very difficult political solution, thanks to the current political makeup in Washington, as well as the voters that the Republican Party and Democratic Party represents, is set up a college savings plan that anyone with kids could set up for themselves and their kids or set up one for themselves. 

Americans could start their college savings plans as soon as their kids are born and keep paying into it until their kid or kids leaves school. That would give them 18-22 years for them to put enough money away for them to pay for their kids college education. They would put in a percentage of their income every week or month. Their employer would match it, you could have a Federal Government matchup as well, and perhaps have the students themselves pay a percentage once they've graduated college and start working. This would make college affordable (not free) for everyone in America.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy