Sean Hannity: Dr. Qanta Ahmed- Here's What Life Under Sharia Law Is Like For A Woman

Source: Dr. Quanta Ahmed-

Source:The New Democrat

For the life of me I don't understand why so-called Progressives today stand up for Sharia Law, or at the very least do not speak out against it and instead label Liberals when we speak out against it and even speak the truth about as bigots. How is Sharia Law any better than the Christian-Right in America. Where in the Bible Belt can women not vote, drive a car, not be able to travel without a male chaperone, have to cover their faces and completely cover their bodies when put in public, not even allowed to swim, risk death if they're caught committing adultery. Where in the Bible Belt can gays be put to death by their government simply for being gay? I'm not a fan of the Christian-Right obviously. At the very least they're stuck in a world that no longer exists and are authoritarian bigots as well.

As Richard Dawkins said on Bill Maher back in October, 'if Islamism and Sharia Law is part of the Islamists as today's so-called Progressives have claimed, then the hell with their culture.' What is progressive about treating women and gays like second-class citizens and even slaves. This is authoritarianism at its worst and to a certain extent even makes Marxism and Christian Conservatism, look moderate at best. At one point I didn't think that was ever possible with how authoritarian both of those ideologies are especially when it comes to individuality and expression. Anyone who calls them self a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist, should hate Sharia Law. Because it goes against everything that you at least say you are in favor of. Being a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist.

Everyone on the Left especially people who are either Atheists, or my case Agnostic, should not just hate Sharia Law, but speak out against it. And stand up for minority rights, gays and women in these countries that live under Sharia Law. Like the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, just to use as two examples. And not call people bigots simply speaking the truth against a non-Christian religion where the members of it are overwhelmingly non-Caucasian and especially non-Anglo Saxon. In the name of political correctness, because you have some Far-Left Utopian notion that minorities including religious minorities, have some right to never be criticized and offended about anything.
Source:Qanta Ahmed

The Concluding Chapters: Rita Hayworth in The Bastard (1968)

Source:The Daily Review

A chance to see Rita Hayworth in color and when she was still very cute and beautiful. Not how she looked in the 1940s and 50s, but still looking very good and sounding great. Her voice always made her sound a lot younger than she actually was and her smile always made her seem younger as well. And she still had the body as well as we’re still talking about one of the top actress’s in Hollywood as well. She was truly special and I just wish we could have seen a lot more of her in color, before she was born for color TV and film.

As far as this film whether you want to call it the Sons of Satan, or The Bastard and I might add The Bastards, because we’re talking about two sons who are brothers who are professional criminals as thieves, it’s the same thing. Two guys who went real bad and one of them even worst by beating the hell out of his brother to keep all the money and jewels that they just stole together. These are guys that only their beautiful adorable mother could love, while their father goes out of their way to pretend he doesn’t even know them and perhaps wears disguises when he’s seen with his sons. So people don’t think he’s their father.

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

Source:The National Interest.

Source:The New Democrat

The Neo-Communists and Neo-Marxists, (as I at least call them in Venezuela) finally not only have some competition, but a liberal democratic opposition to their authoritarian rule. And shows that there’s even a limit to the mount of socialism that Venezuelans will put up with in their country. Especially when it comes with a high cost of the lost of personal freedom and a strong economy. Just as the Cuban economy is improving and the economy starting to move again in Columbia, the Socialist Maduro Administration in Venezuela has seen their economy collapse.

Because of falling oil prices in their country and the Venezuelan government’s Marxist miss-management of their economy, a country that is energy independent and yet not able to pay for their bare essentials like toilet paper and even food. The people in Venezuela stood up and demanded change and chose the liberal democratic opposition the Democratic Party there, which in Venezuela would be considered right-wing, which tells you how Far-Left the current government in Venezuela is. And now The Maduro Administration will have an opposition Assembly that it will have to deal with. With real limits on their power.

It’s not so much socialism that is the problem here, but how far you go with it and are you democratic or not and allow for real personal and even economic freedom, including a free press, free speech and a true opposition. Or do you concentrate so much power in the central government, the executive and head of state. To look after and take care of everyone else for them. Which is what happened in Cuba fifty-five years ago and perhaps would happen in Venezuela if the Neo-Communists there were allowed to hold on power indefinitely.

What the Venezuelan people did with their Assembly elections is to say that there’s a limit to what they expect one government and one political party to do for them and what they’ll allow to do to them. That you can’t blame America and Venezuela’s allies for all the problems that are going on in Venezuela. That at some point a political party, the Neo-Marxist Socialist Party in Venezuela that has had all the power in Caracas for the last 16 years has to take responsibility for the condition of the country.

Newsmax: J.T. Hayworth: Interviewing Allan Ryskind About Dalton Trumbo

Source:Newsmax- Bryan Cranston, as Dalton Trumbo.

Source: The Daily Review

I haven't seen the Dalton Trumbo movie yet so I can't really comment on it at least in a credible sense and I'm not going to take the word of J.T. Hayworth and Allan Ryskind on it as well. Who both come from a very heavy right-wing partisan slant on it to say the least. Whatever you think of Dalton Trumbo's politics and I'm not a Socialist, democratic or otherwise, we're still talking about his politics here. The only reason why he was brought up in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 was because of his politics.

The so-called Red Scare at the start of the Cold War that drove a lot of Americans crazy in believing that communism was so dangerous that a great liberal democracy like America, which is the opposite of communism, couldn't survive in the same world as communism. That it wasn't just communist policies and communist states that had to be defeated and destroyed, but communist beliefs as well. That you needed a fascist state coming from the Far-Right, where everyone looked at politics and the world from the same point of view and all shared the exact same values. That is not freedom and free speech, but a form of fascism.

Dalton Trumbo, wasn't brought in front of HUAC because he was a communist agent for the Soviet Union or a spy or something like the Rosenberg's. He was brought in front of HUAC because he was  a Socialist in Hollywood and had a big mic and stage to get out his political beliefs. As much as the right-wing anti-Communist Warriors said they were defending freedom and liberty in the 1940s and 1950s, it would have been nice if only those things were true. Because instead they were defending what they claimed they were against. Which was fascism and statism.

You can say that Freedom of Speech is so important and that liberal democracy is so powerful that all views are welcomed to be expressed, because we're so strong as a country that we can tolerate extreme views from both the Far-Left and Far-Right and that Americans will be able to make up their own minds on these issues. But these things don't mean anything if you don't actually believe in them. What you do instead is say that freedom and free speech is so important that we have to stand up for the right for everyone to have their own views and be able to express them. Even if they're fringe and then hold them accountable for what they believe and say. But not try to shut them up and then we'll have true freedom and free speech.
Source:Newsmax

Notes On Liberty: Brandon Christensen: 'From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) * The Civil War in Syria

Source:Notes On Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

An interesting idea to dealing with ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. But I gotta tell you its a non-starter. The idea that Turkey would unilaterally give up Kurdistan whether it’s in Turkey, Syria, or even Iraq, where they’re now involved in taking on Iraqi forces there that they are claim are terrorists, it aint happening. America, Iraq and Europe, who are all now involved in trying to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria, need Turkey on our side here. And they are already there bombing ISIS in Syria and we could use their troops on the ground as well. They know the land and people, being neighbors and everything else.

America, can’t take out ISIS by ourselves, or take out Bashar Al-Assad by ourselves. Unless you want to occupy another country 20-25 million people who doesn’t like us. And then end up being bailed out ourselves financially, by the IMF or even China, because we’re already so heavy in debt. And American taxpayers simply won’t pay for this especially if we’re by ourselves again in another Arab-Muslim land and country that doesn’t like us. And our taxpayers aren’t going to pay for this in either new taxes or budget cuts to programs they care about.

Which leaves us to a non-libertarian non-dovish and isolationist solution here. Which is called liberal internationalism and putting together a broad coalition that includes America, as well as Europe, Turkey, Iraq, the Iraqi-Kurds, to not only destroy ISIS and knock them completely out of power like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but knocks the Assad Regime out of power as well. America and Europe through the air in what is called a no fly zone, which is what we did in Libya four years ago. Turkey, the Syrian rebels, Iraq and hopefully Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the ground.

And tell that Russian bullish asshole Vlad Putin, that he can be part of the solution here and have a stake in the new Syria where millions of Syrians don’t want to overthrow their own government, because they’re no longer living under a Baathist psycho dictator, or they can be part of the problem. And risk having another one of their planes shot down in Syria this time. But from a first-world NATO jet, or firepower. America, can’t do this ourselves, certainly Iraq and Syria can’t do it either. We could take out Bashar Al-Assad and his regime by ourselves, but again that would leave us with another mid-size to big country that we would be stuck occupying. We have to do this through coalition.

The National Interest: Robert Farley: 'What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?'

Source:The National Interest- Iraqi Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein. (1979-2003)

Source:The New Democrat 

"In the early days of the air campaign of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States undertook a concerted effort to track and strike Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The effort was predicated on the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would have two effects; it would throw the Iraqi military hierarchy into chaos, and it would make the surviving Iraqi leadership more amenable to a negotiated solution." 

From The National Interest

To answer Robert Farley's question: I think the answer would be chaos. If you think 2003 was a bad time to invade and take out the Hussein Regime in Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, that would have been a great time compared with 1991. 

If we had taken out Saddam in 1991 and he's either replaced by another Baathist dictator like one of his sons and what would we have gained from that? Or almost twenty-five years later we're still trying to occupy Iraq today. America, was in recession in 1991 and had its own economic and financial problems at home. And couldn't afford to take on the responsibility of occupying another big country.

And the economic boom that we had in the 1990s probably doesn't come about in America, because we're spending so much money in Iraq. At least in 2003 there was something that looked like an opposition and there were people that could come in and at least temporarily run the Iraqi Republic. It just took them more than two-years after the invasion to make that come about. There wasn't any at least moderate opposition to the Baathists in 1991. There was Saddam and his Baathists and anyone who opposed them risked their own lives as a result.

The 1991 Gulf War was a very simply and well-executed. Get Iraq out of Kuwait and protect our economic and energy interests in Kuwait. That war was in the national and self-interest of the United States to not have a Baathist dictator in charge of one of the largest oil suppliers in the world to go on top of his already large supply of oil and gas in Iraq. This was not some idealistic neoconservative utopian war that was about bringing freedom and liberal democracy to a country of twenty-million that had no idea what those things were.

President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Council, didn't want to invade and occupy a country about the size of California in land and about the same population as Texas. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, an Arab ally of America's. All they wanted to do was get Iraq out of Kuwait and put Iraq in a tight box so they couldn't invade anyone else again. Which they remained in for the next twelve years with Iraq being so weak that they had a hard time feeding themselves. In were never in any position to attack another country again.

The 1991 Gulf War, was conservative foreign policy and national security at its best. Protect American national interests which was the energy supply coming from Kuwait. Which has a peaceful and moderate regime, as well as a strong economy. And get an evil tyrant out of that country and box him in so he can't invade anyone else. Not to bring peace and liberal democracy to a country that has never heard of those things. The Gulf War, was probably H.W. Bush's finest days as President of the United States, with the grand coalition of European and Arab allies that he bad behind him. And why you wanted someone who his professional and national security background as Commander-In-Chief in a time like that. 

Instead of having a dove in there who generally sees American strength and use of force as a bad if not evil thing, who tends to be against the American military and things that it does. 

Or someone in there who would've done nothing and froze, because they didn't know what to do. Because they lacked the experience and judgement in foreign affairs. And another reason why the 2003 Iraq War was an unnecessary mistake, because we already had Saddam under control and so weak to the point that Iraq didn't even bother defending themselves in that war.

The American Conservative: Tom Switzer: 'Dean of the Realists'

Source:The American Conservative- "Owen Harries/ photo courtesy of the Lowery Institute."

Source:The New Democrat 

"When the first issue of The National Interest was published in 1985, its editor, Owen Harries, proclaimed an affinity between realpolitik and conservatism. By this he meant that realism—a foreign policy that respected the primacy of self-interest as a motive and of power as a means in an anarchic international system—reflected a conservative temperament. After all, both realism and conservatism put “their stress on what is, rather than what should or might be.” Both “emphasize the importance of circumstance and are suspicious of abstract theory and general principles as bases for action.” And both are “aware of the intractability of things and the difficulties and dangers involved in attempting sweeping changes.”

For Harries, realism was not incompatible with the pull to incorporate moral principles into foreign policy; democratic values simply had to be treated as one among many interests. Looking back to George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1797, Harries pointed to the first president’s clear-eyed assertion that U.S. interests must not be compromised by “permanent alliances,” which in turn might undermine America’s diplomatic flexibility. Harries also reminded his readers that John Quincy Adams warned that freedoms at home would only be tarnished by wars abroad. In Adams’s words, America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Were she to “become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” Not for Harries any ideological crusades or grandiose plans for global social engineering.

Yet when the foreign-policy journal he edited was officially launched at the Sheraton Carlton (now St. Regis) in Washington on October 9, 1985, guests were a Who’s Who of leading neoconservatives, including Irving Kristol, editor of The Public Interest; former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick; former chairman of Council of Economic Advisers Martin Feldstein; Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams; Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz; writers Gertrude Himmelfarb and Midge Decter; and the rising 35-year-old star columnist Charles Krauthammer. Writing in the Washington Post to mark the event, future Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal adjudged: “In an effort to influence the foreign-policy agenda, a group of neo-conservatives is rolling out what its members consider their ultimate weapon.”

From The American Conservative 

Commentary Magazine: Noah Rothman: 'The Party of Religious Freedom?'

Source:Commentary Magazine-  The Donald J. Trump: thank God there is only one of them. America is not big and strong enough for another one.

Source:The Daily Review

"Marco Rubio missed an opportunity last night to do something that might have been politically stupid but nevertheless righteous. There is a malignancy eating away at the Republican Party, and Rubio passed on an opportunity to begin the work of excising it."

From Commentary Magazine

"The First Amendment- Prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. That is just covers Freedom of Religion in the United States under the First Amendment."

I don't like blogging about Donald Trump, because he's not a real presidential candidate. He's simply looking to further his own one-man reality TV career and perhaps get another book and documentary that of course is all about The Donald. As if there's nothing else going on in the world and no one else to write about. And if you watch CNN on the regular basis, you might get that impression from them anyway. 

But The Donald is pandering to a group of Americans on the Far-Right inside the Republican Party who believes only they have Freedom of Religion in America. And everyone else is subjected to what big government will allow them. Karl Marx would be proud.

The Republican Party and I think the establishment has already figured this out, but the party as a whole needs to decide are they going to be a party of Freedom of Religion, or are they going to be a fascist party that only tolerates religion and speech that they agree with. In other words is Freedom of Religion real for all believers and non-believers, or just for fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. 

Freedom of Speech covers all speech including offensive and critical speech of minorities, but speech that could come off as even anti-American to Democrats. Or just speech that Republicans agree with. Do Republicans want to be a party of freedom, or a fascist party that only supports the rights of people that Neo-Confederates and the Far-Right already agree with.

With The Donald, again a one-man reality TV star that is keeping CNN and MSNBC in business all by himself, but shouldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But the Far-Right, the Ann Coulter's, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan's, etc, of the world actually believe in this, garbage (to be kind) and would have no problem with either shutting down Mosques and rounding up all Muslims and perhaps Arabs in general. Either through executive force, or passing a couple constitutional amendments to do that, because neither one is constitutional right now. 

And this is what makes a pander and demagogue like Donald Trump dangerous. Because he will never come within a thousand delegates or more of winning the GOP nomination for president, or 270 votes of winning the Electoral College of winning the presidency as an Independent. But there plenty of people out there on the Far-Right who take him seriously and are using him for their own means.

New York Daily News: S.E. Cupp: 'Breaking Up With The Constitution'

Source:New York Daily News- Donald Trump & Ben Carson.

Source:The New Democrat

Damn! I agree with S.E. Cupp on something. Perhaps its time to reëxamine my political beliefs and news opinions. No, not really, but she makes a great point here about the Republican Party and two of their, to be nice eccentric presidential candidates in Donald Trump and Ben Carson. I say on a regular basis as a Democrat that I miss the days of Newt Gingrich. Forget about Ronald Reagan, I would just like to go back to the mid and late 1990s with Newt.

Because as partisan as Newt was he’s also a very intelligent man and someone who not just believes in government, but knows how to govern. He knew he had a Democratic president, he knew he had fairly small Republicans majorities in the House and that Senate Republicans had tight majorities as well. Meaning that there was only so much that Congressional Republicans could do by themselves with a Democratic president and tight majorities in Congress. Yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich did shutdown the Federal Government in 1995, because he couldn’t sit with President Clinton on Air Force One. But he learned from his mistakes and they passed Welfare to Work together in 1996.

But forget about Newt for a minute. It would be nice just to go back to 2011-12 and instead of hearing Republicans talking about threat of Islam inside of America and having the U.S. Government trample the First Amendment and our Freedom of Religion, something that Republicans say they support, but would have the Feds break into Mosques and round Muslims and Arabs in general like the Japanese, Italians and Germans were in World War II, we would hear Republicans claiming to be Constitutional Conservatives.

Even with all of their new big government constitutional amendments to the Constitution. (Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind) Like putting the Federal Government in charge of marriage and what people can watch on TV and do in their free times. At least they were talking about the Constitution. And again in Newt’s case he actually understands the Constitution. But at least the GOP was talking about the importance of the Constitution and claiming to support it. Even as they were proposing to rewrite it even in the same speech. Like with Representative Bachmann, when she announced for president in the summer of 2011. And calling same-sex marriage a threat to national security. At least she claimed to love the Constitution.

But no! We can’t even have the good ole days of big government Republicans proposing to outlaw same-sex marriage and pornography and even gambling from the Federal level. They’ve gotten even crazier with The Donald and Dr. Ben, proposing to close down Mosques, round-up Arabs and tell college students what they can think and hear while they’re at college. Speaking of political correctness and fascism, that is what it looks like from the Far-Right in America. The GOP, the party of religious freedom, just as long as they agree with your religion and your religious beliefs. At least with the Far-Right.

S.E. Cupp, is a true Conservative and so is Senator Rand Paul and several others in Congress, because they not just believe in the Constitution, but understand what they actually believe. With Donald Trump, 2016 is about his latest realty TV show or documentary called, Who Wants Donald Trump For President? In a theater or on a TV near you in 2017. With Ben Carson, welcome back to the 1950s and giving Joe McCarthy a good name by comparison. The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, would be shitting asteroids if they saw what some of the Republican presidential candidates were proposing today.
Source:CNN

The National Interest: Peter Harris: 'Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism & Current World Crises'

Source:The National Interest- President Barack Obama, speaking at The United Nations in New York City.

Source:The New Democrat

"The war in Syria demonstrates the limits of the Westphalian system—but it's still the best rulebook we have."

From The National Interest

"Speaking from the State Floor in the White House on September 10, 2014, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Iraq and the United States’ strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL, a terrorist organization."

Source:The Obama White House- President Barack Obama, speaking at The White House.

From The Obama White House

To put it mildly the world is a lot more complicated now and the developed world which is mostly in the West is different now and less united than it once was. America and Europe, still believe in great liberal values like freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, personal freedom, self-ownership, the ability for one to live freely and make a good life for themselves and basic human rights and civil liberties. And even though we’re no longer fighting Marxism and Communism in general at least in the traditional sense, the West is dealing with a different type of authoritarianism that in many cases is not state-sponsored and organized from some authoritarian state.

Islamism, and private Islamist groups, have now replaced Marxism as the main competitor when it comes to liberalism and liberal values. The liberal order, to use a German term, is now facing Islamism as its main enemy when it comes to whether countries are going to live in free societies that are governed responsibly. Or are they going to live in the stone ages where women, gays and non-Muslims are treated like second or third-class citizens and even prisoners. The West and their Arab allies, haven’t figured out how to deal with Islamism and ISIS effectively yet. For one, a lot of those Arab states don’t believe in liberal values and human rights and are just looking to protect their own authoritarian regimes and monarchies, but don’t want to move to some fourth or fifth-world theocracy. The other being the West, America and Europe, aren’t sure about how much they are willing to invest to fight ISIS in Arabia.

This is a different battle or war taking on Islamism than the Cold War. During the Cold War, the main and really only major enemy to America and Europe was Russia and their Marxist Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China, was still a very poor Marxist society similar to North Korea today for most of the Cold War. With Islamism, it’s not countries that we have to fight for the most part. But groups and groups powerful enough to knock out weak government’s and states and take at least part for their land. As they’ve done in both Iraq and Syria. But the only way you defeat a group like ISIS is through a strong broad committed coalition, which is what liberal internationalism is. That is going to go in and take on ISIS until they’ve defeated them. If you want to protect liberal democracy, liberal values and free societies, you have to fight for them and be united behind that.

Marmar: Rita Hayworth 1967 Interview

Source:Marmar- The Love Goddess!

Source:The Daily Review

The only thing that I would have liked to seen more with Rita Hayworth is Rita in color. She is truly special to look at and to listen to, but black and white simply doesn’t do her justice. I saw They Came to Condura with Rita, Gary Cooper and several others last night and she’s in her early forties at this point, but she still had everything including the great voice, face, hair and body. And was still a hell of an actress. And stick her with a group of U.S. Army soldiers in the Mexican desert where there isn’t another women for perhaps hundred of miles and they haven’t drank or smoked in days and they got this red-hot Spanish goddess with them whose technically their prisoner and guys could end up doing things they wouldn’t normally do when they’re living in much better living conditions.

I made this point before, Rita Hayworth was made for color TV and film and I just wish she became a star in the 1960s, or even 1950s. She was a constant entertainer and goddess that had put guys in sweet dreams for weeks even if they were at war. Even this 1967 TV interview when of course color TV and film were common if not standard by then, was shot in black and white. But again because of how gorgeous and cute she was with that great voice, very similar to Raquel Welch, you can still see how great she was even in black and white and even in her late forties when she was no longer the top Hollywood Goddess in popularity, or perhaps anything else. But she still had it and was still able to grab people’s attention and focus on her.

The National Interest: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies

Source:The National Interest.

Source:The New Democrat

You can't be both a Neoconservative who wants America to police the world mostly if not completely by ourselves and be a fiscal Conservative who puts real limits on what government can do. Who doesn't want to consistently be borrowing money, running up deficits and expects government to pay for most if not all of its government operations as least when times are good. Speaking as a non-fiscal conservative, but fiscal Conservatives prioritize government spending. They lay out what is the money coming in and figure out exactly what government needs to do and then they pay for it.

A Progressive, is different and would try to figure out exactly what government should do without putting many if any limits on it and try to figure out how to pay for it. Even if that requires borrowing the money. Same thing with Neoconservatives who actually tend to be somewhat progressive when it comes to economic policy. George W. Bush in the 2000s, is an example of that. Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, who wanted to use government to move people out of poverty through work and job training. And encourage business's to hire people on Welfare. Speaker Paul Ryan, very similar today.

So if you just look at foreign policy and national security from a fiscal conservative point of view and not from a liberal internationalist or smart power point of view, or even a dovish perspective, having American taxpayers pay for the national security of other developed countries who can economically afford and have the population to defend themselves, doesn't make good fiscal sense, or even national security sense. Also it is not just American taxpayers who pay for other developed countries national defense in taxes. They also pay for it in higher interest rates because of the national debt and that we borrow from countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan, to defend them.

Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, maybe three of them are actually fiscal Conservatives. In party that is supposed to be a conservative party. And I'm thinking Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich and perhaps Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, wants to spend another trillion-dollars on national defense and invest even more money in having America try to defend Europe for Europe and Arabia for Arabia, Japan for Japan and South Korea for South Korea. All of the countries are developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia and South Korea, already have two of the largest militaries and defense budgets in the world. The European Union if they were a country, their economy would be roughly the size of the United States. How come they can't pay for their own national defense? They can, but have chosen not to. Why pay for your own defense, when someone else does that for you. The mind of a Socialist I guess.

America, can't afford to have a small military and defense budget, but we sure as hell can't afford to police the world ourselves. Especially when we're stuck with a twenty-trillion-dollar national debt and we're borrowing money from countries in order to defend the countries that we're borrowing money from. For America to be as secure as possible, financially, economically and security, other countries especially Europe, has to at least play their own part when it comes to their own national defense, as well as dealing with international challenges when they come as well like Syria and Iraq. Socialism, is cheap when you don't have to pay for your own security. Europe, would be a lot less socialist if they had to pay for their own defense and not expect America to do that for them.

Washington Examiner: Fred Barnes: ‘Hollywood Myth-Making’

Source:Washington Examiner- The Hollywood Ten.

Source:The Daily Review

“Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo died in 1976, but Hollywood still hasn’t gotten over its high regard for him. He is the subject of a new movie, Trumbo, that lionizes him as a passionate supporter of the First Amendment and free speech, a true patriot. But that defines Trumbo only in terms congenial to the political culture of the Hollywood left.”

From The Washington Examiner 

“The successful career of Hollywood screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, comes to an end when he is blacklisted in the 1940s for being a Communist" 

Source:Movie Clips Classic Trailers- Bryan Cranston as Hollywood screenwriter and Communist Dalton Trumbo.

From Movie Clips Classic Trailers 

This blog covers political correctness and how that is a threat to free speech on a regular basis. Especially in the last couple of years where political correctness had made a big comeback on the college left in America. With probably thousands of students if not more who believe that any criticism of minorities in America and even individuals is not only bigoted, but should be illegal. Which of course would be clearly unconstitutional if Congress ever passed some law protecting minorities in America from criticism through governmental force.

But as most people know and believe fascism and political correctness just doesn’t come from the Far-Left and if anything has more support for it on the Far-Right. And used to put down Americans who simply see the world, country and live different lifestyles than the Christian-Right and others on the Far-Right in America.

Let’s say that everything that Fred Barnes said about Dalton Trumbo is true and I’m not ready to grant him that: what was Dalton Trumbo guilty of? Failing to answer whether he was a Communist or not to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. He wasn’t even charged with being a Communist agent for Russia and working to destroy the American liberal democratic form of government, or anything like that. He was brought to HUAC simply for being under suspicion for at the very least having ties to Communists and having communist beliefs and even being a member of the Communist Party.

Trumbo wasn’t charged with anything that is illegal in America. At the end of the day that is what this is about: Cold Warriors still living the Cold War wanting to eliminate communism at all costs even at the expense of rounding people up simply for having communist leanings.

I’m not a Communist obviously and I hate communism as a political ideology and perhaps only see Islamism as a worst form of a big government statist philosophy. But to arrest someone for simply being a Communist and sharing that philosophy when they’ve done nothing illegal, is supporting something that Anti-Communists are supposed to be against: which is big government fascism that says either you are with us hundred-percent of the time, or you’re with the enemy.

Dalton Trumbo, was a Hollywood screenwriter and filmmaker who was also a member of the United States Communist Party. So what? We are a great liberal democracy with a constitutional guarantee of free speech. The most liberal free speech rights in the world, at least among large developed countries. We can are free to associate with any groups that we want as long as we aren’t involved in criminal activities.

Dalton Trumbo wasn’t brought to Congress to testify to the House about being a criminal and to talk about his criminal activities, because he wasn’t accused of being involved in any crimes. He was brought to Congress to talk about his possible membership with Communist USA. The Communist Party in America. And declined to answer whether he was a Communist or not, because he didn’t want to be charged with perjury, or have to worry about never working in Hollywood again and being blacklisted.

Back then studios were scared as hell of Communists and communism as well back in the 1940s and 1950s and didn’t want any suspicion of even being associated with Communists. Trumbo, was a Communist not a criminal and never should have been brought in front of the House to answer where he was a Communist or not in the first place. 

Prager U: Jonah Goldberg- What is Social Justice?

Source:Prager U- Jonah Goldberg talking about social justice.

Source:The New Democrat

“Social Justice” is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different.”

From Prager U

From this video all you hear is Jonah Goldberg’s definition of social justice. So take it for what it is worth, but that is not it.

Social justice, or term I prefer as an actual Liberal and not Jonah Goldberg’s week-long drinking binge’s idea of a Liberal, is purely economic freedom. A society where everyone can do well and live in freedom. Where poverty is almost not recognizable, because everyone regardless of their income level has an opportunity to get a good education and get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job and live well in freedom. Perhaps even start their own successful business, or manage one. Not have to live off of public assistance whether they are working or not, because they have a good job that allows for them to comfortably take care of themselves.

Jonah Goldberg’s idea of social justice is what you hear in the video: Big government with both of its paws stuck down the rich man’s wallet and in their bank accounts to take from him to take care of people who struggle just to eat everyday and feed their kids at the same time and avoid being evicted from their public housing unit. But again that is not it.

What I’m talking about what President Clinton called an Opportunity Society. Not some Socialist Utopian Society, where government take cares of everyone, but an Opportunity Society where everyone can live well. Because every kid can go to a good school and for the low-skilled low-income workers and opportunity for them to complete and further their education. So they can get off of public assistance and live well in life with a good job.

Conservatives and Libertarians, love to talk about redistribution of wealth. Perhaps as much as Socialists like to talk about tax the rich. But the only way government can exist is by redistributing wealth. Unless you want to live in a Marxist State where government owns all forms of enterprise. You won’t see many hands go up in the air when you ask: “Who wants to live in a Marxist State?” Not even Bernie Sanders and at least some of his followers.

So of course government is going to redistribute wealth and the question is how. One way to do that is to tax people in Atlanta to pay for a highway in St. Louis, or tax St. Louis to pay for a military base in San Diego.

When it comes to social justice the way to do that is to tax people who are doing well to pay for good schools in low-income communities. Or to give low-income workers and people on Welfare the ability to go back to school and finish their education and get themselves a good job. Night school, community college, private and public job training programs. So they can live in economic freedom as well. Which saves money for your public assistance budget, because you have fewer people who actually need public assistance at all.

Social justice, is an Opportunity Society where everyone can do well. Not a Socialist Utopian Society, where government takes care of everyone. 

Movie Documentary: Biography of The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth

Source:Movie Documentary- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

Source:The Daily Review

Margarita Casino, to me sounds like a better sexier name than Rita Hayworth. Sort of like Raquel Tejada, but its hard to lose with Raquel Welch. I would have loved to see Rita as a Spanish brunette that she originally was, but she was red-hot redhead. Kind of hard to lose with Rita Hayworth. Whether she goes by Hayworth or Casino, or as a brunette, or as a red-head, because she was a goddess regardless of whatever her name was, or what color her hair was. She was someone you see her once and it is like you've seen her everyday and knew her like your brother or something, because you never forgot her. That is the true test of a goddess is do guys especially remember and talk about you or not. Do they say, "yeah she was pretty", as they're moving on with whatever they're doing, or do they remember you and fantasize about you and can't wait to see you again.

Rita, was the Love Goddess and one of the top Hollywood Goddess's of all-time. But she was more than a gorgeous sexy red-head with an adorable smile and sweet voice. She's also one of the top actress's and entertainer of all-time. The most popular at least female star of the 1940s and the best actress of that decade as well. In an era where movies were movies and where you actually had to be able to act and deliver lines and where there were great lines to deliver. And where movies weren't put together simply to take advantage of the latest hot celebrity's pop culture appeal. She was the best of the best in what was really the Golden Age of Hollywood which was the 1940s and 1950s. And I'm not sure that we've seen an entertainer this talented and this attractive at the same time since.

Rita Hayworth, was a princess, but she was a Hollywood Princess. The Princess of Hollywood, who was treated like loyalty and kept guys going during World War II and perhaps the Korean War. Giving millions of American soldiers and marines, all the motivation that they needed to survive those wars. To see a talent like that become the wife of a prince where she's all over the world especially in Europe, but not in Hollywood making movies and writing songs and doing dances, almost seems like a waste of talent. Especially when this was going on in the highest point of her career in the late 1940s. And then coming back to Hollywood after her marriage with Prince Aly Khan and getting movie roles that people and movies women just starting out would have gotten, seems like a damn shame to me. Because she really was the Princess of Hollywood.

Rod Willerton: Hollywood & The Stars: 'The Odyssey of Rita Hayworth'

Source:Rod Willerton- The Odyssey of The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

Source:The Daily Review

"Hollywood & the Stars: The Odyssey of Rita Hayworth"

From Rod Willerton

Was Rita Hayworth the Raquel Welch of her generation, or was Raquel Welch the Rita Hayworth of her generation? We could probably debate that until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over. I would give a slight edge to Rita, because she is literally one of the top Hollywood actress's and entertainers of all-time. Raquel, also a great entertainer, but not in that same class.

Both Rita and Raquel, red-hot, really cute and really sexy. Both have great voices, both move very well, both very bright and pick up things very quickly. It is rare that you'll find an entertainer who is this great and looks this great at the same time. Where you're watching her and you not only never forget her in a movie that she was in, but you don't forget the movie as well. Rita, had that and is still the standard for how other Hollywood goddess' are judged today.

The only thing with Rita Hayworth is that I wish she came out 20-25 years later. Imagine if she came out even in the late 1950s, or 1960s, with the same talents, intelligence, physical beauty, the body and how she moved and all of those movies and images in color. Can you imagine her playing a biker woman, or cowgirl, a rock star, or something? Again with that voice, body and goddess beauty, that adorable smile and voice.

Pal Joey, which Rita did with Frank Sinatra and baby goddess Kim Novak in the late 1950s, is great opportunity to see her in color. She's the female lead in that movie. Miss Sadie Thompson from 1954, or 55, that she did with Jose Ferer, is a great film for her. In that movie she's an incredible entertainer. Singer and dancer, who also has a very sharp lip and wit. With twenty different marines or more all wanting a piece of her.

I'm just starting to learn about The Love Goddess and getting familiar with her movies and career. But similar to again Raquel Welch, Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, there's so much about her that is interesting and worth learning about her.

Rita is truly a treasure who didn't burn out in her thirties or forties and to never be hard of again. A star by the time she was in her early twenties in 1940, all the way through the 1970s. We are not talking about one of the most talented entertainers of all-time that had she not drank so much, or wasn't so depressed, that she could've had a great career. Stories that you do see in the movies and on TV.

We're talking about literally one of the best entertainers of all-time. Perhaps top 3-5 actress's ever and perhaps the best looking actress ever. An entertainer, who was a great actress, singer and dancer and she's still truly special.

Prager U: Derryck Green: Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?

Source: Prager U.

Source:The New Democrat

This video is so stupid that I really can only make fun of it. Because to take it seriously you would have to assume that everything this guy said in this video is accurate. And to do that you might need to take a four-hundred pound man who hasn’t seen their own two feet since they were a kid seriously, when they say diet and exercise is a good thing. Because how would he know, he’s never done either.

I think I’ll go to the so-called voter ID issue. The countries that he point out that have voter ID laws, don’t have the history of racial discrimination that we’ve had. Where one race of Americans, or Europeans have been denied the ability to vote and go to good schools and even be allowed to be educated simply because of their race. Those countries tend to be racially and ethnically pure, by in large. With very small populations of racial and ethnic minorities.

Unlike America where the whole world lives here. Where we don’t have an ethnic majority. The two largest ethnic groups in America, the Germans, such as myself and the English, are both about twenty-percent each. In within thirty years or so America will no longer have a racial majority population as well. The European-American population is falling. And since Derryck Green says that Europe has voter ID laws, so should we, they also have universal higher education. Where their federal government’s are the primary payer when it comes to college education. Where everyone in the country can afford to go to college. Does Mr. Green want that higher education system for America as well? I don’t and I’m a Liberal. No such thing as free education, or free anything else that government does.

The fact is if you’re a Liberal, or a Conservative, you’re not a racist. Racism, is built on stupidity and ignorance, hate and perhaps some form of craziness. Where you see things about people who simply aren’t there. Where you judge people by their hair, or complexion, instead of how they present themselves as an individual which is their character. You look at characteristics of other members of a race and assume that everyone in that race is exactly the same. I’ll probably never get a Tea Partier, or Neoconservative to believe this, but tolerance is a huge liberal value, along with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice. Conservatives, are taught to treat people as individuals and not as members of groups. Individualism, is a big conservative value. So if you actually are a Liberal, or a Conservative, you’re not a racist. But you might play a Liberal, or Conservative on TV, or online.

JCN Soul: Johnny Cash: 'I Won't Back Down'

Source:JCN Soul- The Man in Black: Johnny Cash.

Source:The Daily Review

"From the album "American Recordings 3 - Solitary Man"

From JCN Soul

"I Won't Back down", I believe is the perfect song to use as a motivator for a football team that the head coach could use in his pregame speech. Especially if he has a team that is undermanned at least on a paper and is a clear underdog, but strongly believes that his team is good enough to win this game. But he's got to get his players to believe that. And tell them, "that we're playing  a great team today they're going to hit us hard and we're going to take some big shots and give up some plays and points. But if we stay together and stay united and do what we've been working on all year and been practicing, they won't beat us, because we're better than them." 

I believe this would be a great song for a high school team that perhaps is having a cinderella season and hasn't won in a long time and they're playing a great team that wins a lot every year. And the same thing with a college football program and even an NFL team. And because this is Veterans Day how about taking it up to the battlefield and in combat. That lets say an Army Captain could use to tell him men and tell them that, "we might be undermanned and they may have more ammo, but we're better than the enemy and are better trained and if we stay together, we'll not only survive, but we'll win." I believe that is the message of Johnny Cash's "I Won't Back Down." That you can push him around and knock him around, but you can't knock him out, because he'll just keep coming at you. 

Dennis Prager: 'Feminization of America Is Bad For The World'

Source:Dennis Prager- Well, if radical feminists had their way, the only action figures that American boys would be allowed to have would be Barbie dolls. 

Source:The Daily Review 

"Last week the New York Times published an article, “Sweeping Away Gender-Specific Toys and Labels,” that contained three sentences that explain one of the most important phenomena in American life.

In discussing the increasing move to do away with gender-specific toys – something the New York Times approves of – the article quoted Tania Missad, the “director of global consumer insights” at one of the world’s largest toy manufacturers, Mattel... 

From Dennis Prager 

"Mark talks about "girly men" and the feminization of America and the Church, including Dr. Steven Clark's list, The Signs of a Feminized Man.  Mark and Debbie talk about teaching men to live by their feelings not being a good idea." 

Source:Mark Gungor- Talking about love and marriage.

From Mark Gungor 

Warning! This piece might come as sexist and homophobic for all of you oversensitive readers.

Dennis Prager, has a habit of being partially right. He’ll make an intelligent statement about a big subject, but then will screw up his argument with a whole bunch of stuff that really doesn’t have anything to do with the original point that was making and is simply false.

Having a country of essentially three-hundred twenty-million straight women, or straight women and openly gay men, would be bad for America. It would screw up guys fall weekends, because there would be no more football. And that is just one example. Straight women, would have a hell of a time finding dates, because they would be surrounded by straight women and gay men. If America came under attack, no one would be left to defend the country. Because all the real men in the country would have been deported and freezing their asses off in Russia, standing in bread lines for Vladimir Putin. All of the new unemployment in America with all of those football players out-of-work, because no one is watching football anymore. Twenty-four hours a day of soap operas, cooking shows, celebrity TV and so-called reality TV.

The Far-Left in America, has this idea that all Caucasians, who don’t share their politics, are bigots and that Caucasian men are all sexist and that even masculinity is sexist, because it isn’t feminine. This is the last faction of the country you want running the country. Well one of the last. They’re running tied right now with the Christian-Right that would turn America into the West’s version of Saudi Arabia. Where it would essentially be illegal to be feminine in public and where women would become servants of their men. What the New-Left in America will probably never understand is that men and women are certainly different. We look different, we think different, men tend to be bigger, stronger and taller than women. We even think different and tend to be interested in different things. Well, at least straight men compared with straight women. None of these differences are bad, they’re just different.

I have some advice for the New-Left in America, free of charge, because I doubt they’ll take it: if you don’t like masculine straight men, don’t hang out with them and don’t vote for them. Move to San Francisco, or Manhattan, where you might have better luck of finding a peanut farmer than a straight man. 

Guys are guys and girls are girls and there’s nothing wrong with that. We're divided almost completely down the middle in the country where both sides are able to influence the country and make themselves known and felt. Even our gay population is divided evenly among men and women. 

If Scandinavia is your ideal part of the world where you think everything is perfect there, try living over there for a while and see what it is like to live there. But as long as you’re in America try dealing with life as an American and our culture that combines both masculinity and femininity, or work to change the culture.

George Seaton: Airport (1970)

Source:Turner Classic Movies- Left to right: Dean Martin, Jacqueline Bisset, and Helen Hayes.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Mel Bakersfeld, general manager of Lincoln International Airport, is beset with problems during one of the worst snowstorms in the history of the Midwest. A disabled jet has blocked the major runway, and the auxiliary runway is too short for takeoffs in bad weather conditions, forcing Mel to call maintenance chief Joe Patroni to solve the crisis; Mel's wife, Cindy, informs him that she wants a divorce; and Tanya Livingston, the Trans Global Airlines passenger agent with whom Mel is having an affair, is distracted by the mischievous Ada Quonsett, an elderly woman who is trying to stow away on a jet to Rome. 

Meanwhile, the emotionally disturbed D. O. Guerrero comes on board with a bomb in a briefcase, intending to blow up the plane so that his wife, Inez, can collect on the life insurance policy he has just purchased. 

The jet is piloted by Mel's brother-in-law, Vernon Demerest, who has just learned that his lover, stewardess Gwen Meighen, is pregnant. Shortly after departure, he is warned that Mel and Tanya have determined that Guerrero is carrying a bomb. With Ada's help, Vernon attempts to get the briefcase, then nearly succeeds in persuading Guerrero not to open it, but Guerrero runs into the bathroom and explodes the bomb. 

Guerrero is blown out of the jet, Gwen suffers a serious eye injury, and the aircraft is severely crippled, but Vernon and co-captain Anson Harris manage to land on Lincoln's runway, which Patroni has just cleared. As the passengers and crew enter the terminal, Vernon's wife, Sarah, observes her husband's obvious concern for Gwen and realizes that he has been unfaithful." 

From Turner Classic Movies 

"Burt Lancaster and Dean Martin head an all-star cast in this classic disaster film from producer Ross Hunter, for which Helen Hayes received her second Oscar. On the ground, manager Mel bakersfeld (Lancaster) juggles lover Jean Seberg and wife Dana Wynter while coping with a blizzard, aided by mechanic George Kennedy (who returned in all three sequels). 

In the sky, Capt. Vern Demerest (Martin) must maintain control of a 707 with his pregnant stewardess girlfriend (Jacqueline Bisset), a sly stowaway (Hayes), and a bomb-toting maniac (Van Heflin) aboard. Often imitated but never equaled, this box office hit was adapted by Academy Award winner George Seaton (Miracle on 34th Street, The Country Girl) from the best seller by Arthur Hailey (Hotel).

MPAA Rated PG for some intense sequences of adventure violence and language.

Produced by Ross Hunter Productions. Released by Universal Pictures, an division of NBCUniversal, an Comcast company." 

Source:The Baltimore Movie Trailer Park- Jean Seaberg and Burt Lancaster in Airport (1970) No Wonder Mel never goes home to his wife. LOL

From The Baltimore Trailer Park 

"Trailer from the 1970 movie : Airport" 

Source:Trailer Tajm- a trailer of Airport (1970

From Trailer Tajm

The 1970s, was a crazy and very entertaining even with how gloomy and depressing a decade that it was with the bad economy, Vietnam War, high crime rate and everything else. But one of few great things about that decade was the entertainment, especially movies and TV. 

Terrorism was on the mind of millions of Americans in the 1970s, as well as what could happen if something went wrong with an airplane when it was in air and thousands of miles from a nearest airport. Soap operas were also very popular and common in the decade, as well as movies that combined several different genres and stories in one movie. 

Airport, isn’t a pure action movie, or action/thriller, or action/drama, or action/comedy, or soap opera. It was all of those things into one movie. With a great cast and a great director.

Airport, is essentially about what good decent intelligent people, who all have their own issues and problems outside of work, do when they’re all under extreme pressure: 

Like having a passenger on the plane who is so desperate, who is out-of-work and can’t hold onto a job, who needs money and believes there is nothing left he can do, but have himself killed so his wife can collect his life insurance. Van Heflin, plays a man named Guerro (apparently he wasn't born with a first name) who manages to get a bomb on the plane. 

The General Manager (played by Burt Lancaster) of the airport, is no longer in love with his wife and as a result is now a workaholic who doesn’t want to go home at night, because he’s happier working all the time. 

Jacqueline Bisset, plays a head stewardess who is having an affair with a married pilot and is now pregnant with his baby. Dean Martin, plays the father of the head stewardess’s baby and his married and having an affair with that stewardess.

You have all of these decent intelligent people who are all very good at their jobs, but are all under enormous pressure and are all now dealing with an airplane that has a bomb on board by a man who is suicidal and wants to set the bomb off and the bomb does go off. So you have all of these people who are already under enormous pressure now having to deal with a potential airplane disaster in horrible Upper Midwest weather in the winter, leaving from Chicago. And now also have to deal with the possibility of hundreds of people dying in a horrible plane crash. 

This is a very entertaining and very funny movie. Perhaps not so believable with all the side soap operas in it. But even great soap operas tend not to be very believable. And it is very entertaining and pretty funny movie with very funny people in it and a an all-star cast.

The National Interest: Colin Dueck: 'Donald Trump, American Nationalist'

Source:The National Interest - The Donald J. Trump. Thank God there's only one. Well, only one sr. Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Donald Trump’s real niche, carved out in his own strange way, is simply American nationalism. And this is a powerful force among Republicans. 

In the Republican presidential race, while Donald Trump’s star has faded a little, he continues to lead nationally in most polls. To be sure, he is not going to be president. Trump is more of a circus barker than a plausible commander-in-chief. But his continued polling success should indicate something about his appeal that observers from both parties would best understand. And partly, believe it or not, this has to do with U.S. foreign policy." 

From The National Interest 

"The Republican presidential candidate discussed Carson's rising poll numbers live on "Good Morning America."

Source:ABC News- interviewing The Donald J. Trump.

From ABC News

When you look at Donald Trump, you have to know that he's a businessman and a salesman, as well as the biggest narcissist perhaps in the history of the world. Who does these little things like running for president simply to bring attention himself. Who has multiple positions on perhaps every single major political issue going back thirty years since he first got involved in American politics from the outside. 

You shouldn't take anything The Donald says with a grain of salt,  years supply of salt. He goes where he believes the popular support is. He really should be running for both Narcissist and Faddist of the United States and run both offices at the same time. (He could afford to do it) Because who would beat him, or even challenge him. He's lucky politicians and candidates aren't required to take truth serum before they say anything, because he wouldn't be able to run for anything, other than maybe his own positions.

The Donald's latest venture and real reality show, Who Wants Donald Trump For President, is just an attempt to speak to so-called Middle-America Americans, Richard Nixon's Silent Majority. People who feel left behind from the New America. Anglo-Saxon Protestants primarily and to show them that he's with them. Even though he's nothing like them as far as where he's from, where he lives, the type of lifestyle he lives, the fact that he's not very religious at all. 

Maybe The Donald will get a new book, a documentary, perhaps an actual reality show out of this so-called presidential campaign. But he won't get the presidency, because the current group of Americans that he's pandering to are not enough for him to win the presidency. A Republican can't kiss off Latinos and women and hope to have any shot at winning the White House. So this is not about him being president.

Prager U: Greg Gutfeld- 'Left But Really Right'

Source:Prager U- Right is wrong, at least in Greg Gutfeld's case.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Successful liberals live by conservative values. It’s true. The liberal musician, the liberal chef, the liberal writer–all swear by things conservatives love, like competition, earned reward, and, yes, profit and the bottom line. Greg Gutfeld, bestselling author of, “How To Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct”, explains.” 

From Prager U

I don’t have a nice way of putting this other to say that Greg Gutfeld has an interesting and even good sense of humor. And is entitled to his liberal First Amendment rights like all other Americans.

All of these collectivist socialist values that comes from Europe, that he was talking about, are exactly that. Collectivist socialist values. Illiberal in most cases, because Liberals believe in liberty, which is where the word comes from and Socialists believe in the collective and seeing to it that you have a big enough government to see to it that no one has to go without.

To suggest that people who are successful regardless of political ideology, live by conservative values, would be like saying anyone who is against racism, believes in free speech and expression even as it relates to pornography and offensive speech , things that the liberal ACLU defends in court everyday, must be Liberals.

And if you believe that gays should be treated equally under law, you must be a Liberal. Right? Am I at least in the ballpark on this one? If this is case then most Americans are Liberals, because we tend to believe in these things and oppose discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion and even sexuality. If same-sex marriage was on a national ballot, it would probably win 60-40 now. Does that mean 3-5 Americans are liberal? I could argue that we are. But same-sex marriage is just an example of that.

You don’t have to be a Conservative, or even live by conservative values to be successful in America. If you believe in personal freedom constitutional rights, individual rights, civil liberties, equal justice under law, values that tend to unite Americans, are you a Liberal? No, because these are simply Americans values that tend to bring Americans together. Instead of trying to divide a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people between Right and Left.

And doing it in a way that suggests Liberals are simply about collectivism and just another way of saying Marxist. And people who believe in productivity, hard work, education, responsibility, fiscal responsibility, etc, aren’t conservative necessarily who live by the conservative ideology. They’re just good productive Americans who in many cases also believe personal freedom, including privacy, equal justice and rights under law, a very liberal freedom of speech, etc.

If you’re going to accuse people of being liberal and followers of liberalism, which Liberals tend to take as complement, by the way and not as an insult, so I don’t know what Greg Gutfeld is getting out of here other than maybe some laughs (perhaps at himself and some new followers people who already agree with him, at least have the decency to know what the hell you’re talking about. Instead of going off bogus (to be kind) liberal stereotypes from the 1950s and 1960s. Join the rest of the country in the 21st Century where many Americans now embrace so-called liberal values, that I’ve already laid out, as well as Greg Gutfeld’s so-called conservative values.

If the Right had to talk about actual Liberals and not just people who call themselves Liberals , because they don’t have the balls to be called Socialists, or are called Liberals in by the mainstream media, or hyper-partisan rightists (such as Greg Gutfeld) the Right would lose all the time if they had to debate Liberals and liberalism for what we really are. Because Americans now tend to embrace these so-called liberal values.