Bernard Goldberg: 'We Love Free Stuff- As Long As Someone Else Is Paying For It'

Source:Zazzle- Truer words have never been said.

Source:The New Democrat

“It’s become Democratic Party orthodoxy, at least if you’re a progressive running for president: First, you righteously demand that the richest Americans pay their “fair share” which is a top tax rate of at least 70 percent. Then you promise “free” college at public universities for everyone. After that, you say that health care is a right and demand “Medicare for all.” For good measure you throw in that everyone who wants a job will be guaranteed a job, maybe even a guaranteed annual income, and of course, in the short run, an increase in the minimum wage.”

From Bernard Goldberg

"Milton Friedman Replies to a Socialist about the cost of free stuff."

Source:Simply Explained- Listen to Uncle Milton, instead of Uncle Sam. 

From Simply Explained

Socialists whether they're democratic or not or self-described like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez or closeted like Elizabeth Warren and others, would have a lot more respect and credibility in America and perhaps even followers and believers if they were upfront and completely honest about what they're talking about. And instead of arguing that all these new public services that they want and new investments in current public services would be free, because they would be provided for by the Federal Government or any other government and just be honest about that and say, "government can do all these things, but they'll come with a cost and real cost at that."

Source:Crush The Street- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandra O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialist Members of Congress 

The only things that are free in life once you're parents are no longer supporting you, is death and things that you win in contests. Coupons that you get at stores from being first time or regular customer at your stores. Everything else comes with a cost in life, even for people who live off of public assistance. You might argue that low-income people get things like Food Assistance and Medicaid for free, but the fact is the price they pay for getting those services is a steep and very expensive one, which is living in poverty. If you pay taxes for the public services that you get in life, you don't need to be an accountant or lawyer to realize that you're paying for those so-called free services. Whether it's Medicare or national defense or anything else that the U.S. Government provides for their people.

What Socialists in the Democratic Party do whether it's Senator Bernie Sanders ( no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress ) or Representative Alexandria O. Cortez or any other Socialist in Congress, ( again, whether they're self-described or closeted ) is saying that Uncle Sam is going to give every American is who is not rich all of this free stuff, because Uncle Sam is friends or partners with Santa Clause and his helpers and everyone is going to get free health care, health insurance, college, pension, a job, income even for people who only don't work, because they don't want to work. And that the rich are going to pay for all of this taxpayer funded free stuff. Even though anyone who is familiar with the American economy knows the way the rich avoid taxation especially high taxation, is by taking their money, investments, and property outside of America and investing in other countries with lower taxation, or start those new investments in those countries.

If you want free stuff in life, win your state lottery, became a professional gambler, or rob a bank. None of these suggestions I would actually recommend, other than maybe winning the lottery if you know something about the lottery that no one else does. Otherwise come back down from your Planet Mars marijuana high and back down to Earth and realize that life is not free. It's okay to be a Socialist, even though I don't agree or even like socialism, but you at the very least be honest about it even at the risk of losing political support. And say, "of course all these public services aren't going to be free, but they're affordable and yes taxes on the middle class will have to be raise either through new payroll taxes, income, or new sales taxes, but the investments will be worth it for you."

The problem with my own argument here is that once Socialists start talking honestly about their socialism, the popularity and approval of democratic socialism in America would drop faster than a bus going off a bridge into a lake. Americans would actually wake up to the fact that, "wait, I actually have to pay for all these new government services. I thought Uncle Sam or Bernie, or Aunt Alexandria, or Elizabeth were going to give me these services for free." Even the most Far-Left amongst us once they start actually having to pay taxes, especially new taxes tend to not like high taxes. Especially if they're trying to buy their first home, looking to get married and have kids, maybe starting their own business. But at least these Socialists would no longer sound like politicians and instead like people who are actually trying to lead and believe in their own politics.

Notes on Liberty: Bruno Gonclaves Rosi- ‘Communism/Socialism is Rubbish- Both in Practice & In Theory’

Source:Slide Player- Communism & socialism.

Source:The New Democrat 

“I’m getting tired of reading and listening to so-called libertarian or conservative people saying that “in theory socialism is beautiful.” No, it’s not. In theory, socialism can be summed up as “the end of private property.” This is how Karl Marx summed it up. The genius of Ludwig von Mises is precisely in the fact that he did not have to wait until 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, to realize that this does not make sense. When the Soviet Union was still a young country sweeping intellectuals around the world, von Mises made the following remark: without private property, there is no supply and demand. Without supply and demand, there is no price formation. Without prices the economic calculation is impossible. And that is precisely what happened in the USSR and happens in countries that follow the path of socialism: without the compass of free market prices, governors can not make decisions about allocating resources. Socialism is the death of rationality in economics. Socialism is rubbish in practice because before that it’s rubbish in theory. Please stop talking nonsense. The free market, on the other hand, is beautiful in practice because first of all, it is beautiful in theory.”

From Notes On Liberty 

"Karl Marx remains deeply important today not as the man who told us what to replace capitalism with, but as someone who brilliantly pointed out certain of its problems. The School of Life, a pro-Capitalist institution, takes a look... 

Source:The School of Life- Socialist hero Karl Marx 

From The School of Life

Before someone argues that of course socialism works, just look at Britain, France, Scandinavia, and perhaps Europe in general, this is not about socialism at least in the democratic sense. This is about communism, which is different and is the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Every social democratic or democratic socialist country in the world, has a capitalist economic system. Their capitalist system is just different than America’s and even Canada’s and even Germany’s. And socialism along with communism, aren’t just economic theories and systems, but political ideologies and governmental systems as well.

Europe with their social democratic/democratic socialist economies as well as forms of government, of course look different from America, which is a liberal democratic federal government, with governmental power is spread out and where individualism is rampant and encouraged.

People on the Far-Left everywhere and not just in America, argue that we don’t know if communism and socialism have failed or not, because they’re never in accurately put into practice. But we know that is simply not true. We know that social democracy/democratic socialism, have been put into practice and we know the results from that economic system and form of government. And we know that communism has been put into practice and the results of that economic system and form of government.

How do we know how socialism and communism work? Because the people who advocate for communism are actually talking about Europe and other social democratic countries around the world like Japan, Australia, Canada. That wealth should be highly taxed and spread out. That no one should have to go without the basic necessities of life regardless of their education and production levels. That you should have a big centralized welfare state to provide people with the insurances that they need to live well. That is the economic system of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia, Japan as well.

What Communists do is make the same arguments that Democratic Socialists do, but take it further on both economics and expand their ideology to how government should operate and the role of state and and people in society. That the state should be put in charge of the people to serve the people on their behalf and meet everyone’s needs for them. That people sacrifice choice and freedom, for economic and physical security. And as long as everyone cooperates and doesn’t oppose the state, they would live in prosperity. T

Communists always promise that communism and the contract that Communists propose when they run for office. Whether they officially label themselves as Communists like in Cuba, or are dishonest with their ideologically and govern as closeted Communists, like what we see in Venezuela. Where the party in power there is actually called the Socialist Party, but they effectively at least govern as Cuban Communists. With a little more media, opposition, and freedom for the people.

Why Communism fails is because people, human beings in general tend to want freedom and be able to make their own decisions and self-determination. Wherever they live in the world, at least when they’re being honest. And that includes the social democratic/democratic socialist countries of Europe ( with the key word being democratic ) and when you take that freedom away and you take competition away, you also take away individualism and creativity, the incentive for people to improve and be productive, because they’ve been promised that whatever happens with them and however they perform in life at whatever they do, that big government no matter what will always be there to take care of them.

People all over the world tend to operate from fear: that if they don’t succeed and do well in life, bad things will happen to them that government won’t be able to bail them out and make it all better again for them. Which tends to be all the incentive that most people need to succeed and be productive in life. Because people tend not to want to live on Welfare and be able to do well in life so they don’t need Welfare to support themselves.

In a communist system and I would argue at least even in a democratic socialist system, that fear is taken away. Because social welfare benefits from those countries at least in those developed countries, are so generous, that people know if they fail, they’ll always have big government there to bail them out. With our more liberal capitalist economic system, we don’t have that generous taxpayer funded insurance system to ball us out when we fall on hard times or even fail. Which gives us all the incentive in the world to succeed in life.

Seriously, if you don’t believe communism is a failure both as an economic and governmental system, spend some time in Cuba or North Korea. People don’t flea from countries that are doing well and are prosperous. And take long dangerous boat rides from Cuba to Florida, to escape the authoritarianism of Cuba and try to live in freedom of America.

Americans don’t escape America to go live in Cuba or China, because they can’t handle personal decision-making anymore and want to go live on Welfare in Cuba, the Communist Republic of Korea, ( which is actually North Korea really is ) or China. During the height of the Cold War, about half of the world live under one authoritarian government or another, including Europe. Now most of the world especially in the West, no longer lives under communism or another form of authoritarianism.

Daniel J. Mitchell: 'Three More Reasons To Laugh At Communism'

Source:Daniel J. Mitchell- with a humorous and accurate look at communism.

Source:The New Democrat

“I sometimes feel guilty when I mock communism. Should I really be joking about an ideology that directly or indirectly caused 100 million deaths? Are laughs appropriate when there is ongoing torture, abuse, and starvation in communist hellholes such as North Korea and Cuba?’ 

From Daniel J. Mitchell

I sort of look at Communists and communism like the way teachers might look at poor students. Students who fail the exact same tests over and over who simply don’t do the work they’re assigned and don’t learn the lessons that they’re taught. That old cliche those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

We know communism doesn’t work, at least anyone with a brain who is mentally competent, sane, sober, and capable of learning. And yet it still exists in a lot of the third world in and now even in a country like Venezuela which is an energy independent country and at one point one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. Similar to how Chile and Brazil are today. We know it doesn’t work and yet people keep trying to make it work and keep trying to experiment with it.

A look at Communist lack of logic-

“Maybe if we only nationalize parts of the economy, or allow people to own their own property.

Maybe if our state-owned industries are partially privatized.

Maybe if we allow free and fair open elections, Communists will actually get elected and we can hold power that way.

Maybe if we allow for some free and private media, private news organizations will still kiss the central government’s huge over paternalistic ass for fear of being taken over by the regime and thrown into jail.”

None of these experiments work for communism because when they’re tried and people get a taste of freedom, they tend to like it.

Imagine being lost in a desert for weeks perhaps your plane crashes and you have to rely on only what you brought for that trip and then you’re finally recused and you start pouring water down your throats and perhaps try to drink and entire lake, at the same time you’re eating everything in sight including eating things that months ago people couldn’t pay you to eat, but you’re starving and you’ll eat anything. Are you going to go back to being stuck in the hot desert not knowing when you’ll be able to eat and drink anything ever again, or are you going to hang onto your freedom and live in civilization with the freedom to eat an drink whenever you want whatever you want?

Freedom can be addicting. Communism and authoritarianism in general is suffocating and torturing. When people escape communism and authoritarianism in general, they tend to fall in love with freedom and not wanting to live under an authoritarian system ever again. Communists have an ego problem and over trust in government and believe that people are essentially morons who can’t be trusted to put their pants on correctly each morning and therefor need Big Government to babysit them. And as we see now with only North Korea being the only pure communist state left in the world, people tend to like having the freedom to make their own decisions and tend not to want Big Government to do their thinking and decision-making for them.

Mob Video Vault: Spies Among Us- Communists in The United States

Source: Mob Video Vault-

Source:The New Democrat

I hate communism about as much anyone who is not on the Far-Right and not part of some right-wing fascist ideology like nationalism or theocracy, but I love the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, more than I hate communism. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, America is great and big enough for all sorts of political philosophies and ideologies. From the great ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, that America has been built around. To the fringe and even dangerous ideologies if these people were to ever have real power in America like communism and nationalism.

What makes America great and exceptional, is our diversity and individualism. Not just our racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, but our political diversity. That you can have Socialists like the Bernie Sanders of the world who believe the Federal Government should try to do practically everything for people and have all the tax revenue necessary to pay for all of that big centralized government. To Libertarians on the Right, who believe that government should do practically nothing for anybody. Other than law enforcement, national security and foreign affairs.

As Un-American as communism is with how collectivist, statist, anti-individualist a philosophy that it is, fascism is just as Un-American. When you have right-wing fascists and tribalist's that we have not just in America, but in Congress in the 1940s and 1950s, saying that not only communism is bad for America, but people who have communist and other socialist leanings and beliefs, should be in jail and not be allowed to work simply because they have Far-Left beliefs, you're being just as bad and more dangerous as the Communists. Because you're saying free speech and assembly is dangerous in America, even though it guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And that you should either believe and think like we do, or you should be put in jail or live in the underground of America.

But that is what we had in America in the 1940s and 1950s and had in Congress as well. First with the House Un-American Activities Committee investigation in the 1940s, which was as Un-American as the Communists that they were supposedly investigating. And then later the Senate Investigation Committee investigation led by Senator Joe McCarthy in 1953 and 54. Investigating supposed Communists in the U.S. Government.

Communists on the Far-Left and Christian-Theocrats and Nationalists on the Far-Right, only become a threat to America when they're actually in power. And have no checks on their power and can get away with anything. But short of that they're right to free speech and assembly, is just as strong as anyone else's. As it should be in America and why we are so exceptional because we allow everyone to believe what they believe and even campaign for it.
Source:Mob Video Vault

Daniel Mitchell: An Anniversary of Communism- 100 Years of Communism

Source: Daniel Mitchell-

Source:The New Democrat

Communism- where do I start and how to talk about this? How about what I hate about it and why it simply doesn’t work at least in the sense that it makes things better for society than that country was before. I guess you could start with the pure over centralization of it. This idea that if you give one government authority the power over everyone else in the country even in a huge country like China or Russia, or a midsize country like North Korea, or a small country like Cuba, even to serve the people that Communists claim they want to serve, that everything will better for everyone else. We have a 100 years of experience now to show that simply doesn’t work.

People can point to the People’s Republic of China all they want, but the Chinese economy didn’t take off until they brought in capitalism or what they call state capitalism and gave their people freedom to manage their own economic affairs and decide for themselves where to work, where to live, and to even be able to start their own companies or buy former state-owned companies in China. And yes, China is still a communist state at it relates to the lack of personal and political freedom there, or that they don’t have any private media and information in that country. But Marxist economics clearly failed in China. Pre-1980 China was a gigantic North Korea as far as their economy. One of the poorest countries in the world.

If you can stomach the lack of economic and personal freedom that results in a communist state, like you just ate three meals a days in jail or prison for a month straight and somehow managed to hold all of that garbage down (I hope your’e not eating right now) how about we get to how insulting of a political philosophy it is. According to Communists Karl Marx is God or their cult leader and everyone else are a bunch of morons who can barely spell their names and struggle just to tie their shoes or take two steps forward without tripping over their own feet. Communists believe the world is simply too complicated for the average person which is most of the people in any country regardless of the size and wealth of the country. And you need Big Government to make everyone’s personal and economic decisions for them.

With any other generation other than the Millennial Generation, I might be saying something like, “for the life of me, I don’t understand why Millennial’s seem to respect if not like Communists and communism and perhaps Socialists and socialism in general.” Especially if I was in a Jimmy Stewart dog gone it what’s going on with young people kind of mood. But we’re talking about a generation that doesn’t even respect history, let alone is knowledgable about it and believes that Hollywood wasn’t created until 2000. And perhaps has never even heard of the Soviet Union. And looks at everything that happened before they were born as, “so old school” and therefor not worth their time learning about.

We’re also talking about a generation that values pop culture and one’s style and attitude, over their substance and what they bring to the table as far as knowledge and professional qualifications. So they look up to people like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Socialists from the 1960s and 70s like Tom Hayden and many others, that were part of the New-Left movement then, because they were antiestablishment. Who smoked cigars, wore long hair, including beards, wore berets, and talked in this language that makes them sound like they’re high or something. So these people are considered cool or awesome to them, even if they’re responsible for murdering people even in the name of some violent revolution to take down what they see as a corrupt and racist system.

But for every American who grew up at least in some point during the Cold War and remembers hearing about the Soviet Union and Russians leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and remember hearing about these things and people as kids, who were born before lets say 1980, Americans who weren’t part of the 1960s New-Left socialist movement know how bad communism is. And the horrible consequences that have come from this overly statist collectivist philosophy. That always puts the concerns of the regime and the ideas of Karl Marx, over what’s good for the people and the people themselves. That treats people like they’re mental patients or mentally retarded and living in institutions, because they’re not competent enough to make thee most basic of decisions for themselves.

Daniel J. Mitchell: 'Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism'

Source:AIM- Marxist Socialist Karl Marx and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Source:The New Democrat 

"I wrote last week about evil of totalitarian ideologies such as communism and fascism and pointed out that both antifa and Nazis should be treated with complete disdain and ostracism.

And that led me to find common ground with my left-of-center friends, even though I don’t like many of their policies.

I don’t like redistribution…programs are financed with taxes and that the internal revenue code is enforced by coercion…if you catch me in a cranky mood, I’ll be like the stereotypical libertarian at Thanksgiving dinner and wax poetic about what’s wrong with the system. That being said, I much prefer the coercion found in western democracies compared to the totalitarian versions of coercion found in many other parts of the world. At least we have the rule of law, which limits (however imperfectly) capricious abuse by government officials. …our Constitution still protects many personal liberties, things that can’t be taken for granted in some places. Moreover, there is only a trivially small risk of getting abused by the state in western nations because you have unpopular views. And there’s little danger of persecution by government (at least nowadays) based on factors such as race and religion. This is what makes liberal democracy a good form of government (with “liberal” in this case being a reference to classical liberalism rather than the modern version). Unfortunately, there are some people in America that don’t believe in these principles." 

From Daniel J. Mitchell

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog that the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism. (In his view) And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. 

So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society (in their view) where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

In this democratic socialist socialist state, things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc, would be under government control. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around: transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they don't fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. 

Socialism (democratic or not) is still a very collectivist ideology where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we are romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war, were soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America. And Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus, that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view. (To use as one example)

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the democratic world, at least. 

The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism or social democracy, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil, or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. 

Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well, they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism, if you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well, if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? 

Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.

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.

Original Intent Doc: Cultural Marxism- The Idea of Eliminating Free Thought and Free Activity

Source: Cultural Marxism-

Source:The New Democrat

The video that you’ll see on this post, is the Far-Right version of social collectivism. That the traditional way of life from lets say the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right, should be the dominant way of life in America, if not the West as a whole. So for anyone who thinks I’m picking on Far-Left collectivists here meaning Marxists, actually I’m not. I’m going to go after both fringes from both wings when it comes to social collectivists in America.

Cultural Marxism, is the idea that free thought and activity are somehow dangerous to society. The idea being that when people think and act for themselves, they’ll think and act in the wrong way and put the state at risk. Cultural Marxism, at least to me along with communism, are Far-Left versions of fascism. The idea that individual freedom and individualism, are not only dangerous, but unnecessary, because Marx and the state knows best what people need to live well and what they should believe and know. So this is the Far-Left version of fascism and social collectivism.

Examples of Cultural Marxism, would be political correctness. The idea that free speech is dangerous, because it gives people the freedom to say things that Marxists and other leftist collectivists feel would be offensive to people they care about. So what you need is collective speech instead. And have an official authority to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate to say in society. And there is a right-wing version of political correctness and censorship as well. That I’ll get into later.

Another example of Cultural Marxism has to do with human activity and lifestyle. That masculinity and straight males in general, are dangerous for society. Because they tend to be dangerous, as well as sexist and especially if they’re Caucasian, they tend to be racist, sexist and homophobic. That religion, especially Western religions like Christianity, are dangerous for society. And what you need is a completely secular culture, or at least a culture without Christianity and Judaism. And instead everyone would look to Marx for their inspiration.

Now the right-wing version of Cultural Marxism. I’m not sure if there’s one term for right-wing collectivism. I tend to look at so-called Christian-Conservatism. But even so-called Christian-Conservatives, who live very traditionally culturally conservatives lives, are not looking to force their way of life on society as a whole. I believe William F. Buckley, who tended to be conservative-libertarian on a lot of social issues, but lived a pretty culturally conservative life, would be a pretty good example of a Christian-Conservative, who doesn’t want to combine their religion with state.

I also look at neoconservatism, or the New-Conservatism when it comes to right-wing social collectivism. And what they believe is that America has been going downhill since the 1960s when the non-Marxists on the Left, Liberals and Liberal-Libertarians, came to prominence and of age. And said the 1940s and 1950s traditional way of life, is too constrictive for them. And people need the freedom to live their own lives and be themselves. Live as individuals and not as members of the collective, or collectivists. And what Neoconservatives want to do is impose the 1940s and 1950s way of life on the country as a whole. Instead of allowing Americans to live their own lives.

Neoconservative political correctness, would be the goal to eliminate speech that goes against the state and what the country is supposed to stand for. So political speech that goes against right-wing governmental policy. The way the Nixon Administration reacted to the anti-war movement in the early 1970s and doing all sorts of investigations about that movement and labeling them Communists. As well as the goal of censoring and eliminating entertainment like music and movies that the Christian-Right sees as immoral. Violent and sexual activity on TV and in music would be examples of this.

As a Liberal, I’m against collectivism in general, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. And this blog covers fascism coming from both fringes a lot. Americans, should be free to act and think for themselves and then be held accountable for how they act and what they say. You put all the facts, information and thoughts out there, teach people how to think, but not what to think and you’ll create and educated society where people will be able to figure these things out for themselves. Instead of trying to create a collectivist society, where people are treated like idiots and where the central state does their thinking and acting for them.
Source:Original Intent Doc

Patricia Arquette: ‘It’s Time To Have Wage Equality Once And For All and Equal Right For Women’

Source:The New Democrat- Hollywood actress Patricia Arquette with a political statement at the Oscars.

Source:The New Democrat

“Boyhood” supporting actress winner Patricia Arquette catapulted gender equality and the wage gap between men and women to the forefront of the media landscape while accepting her award at the Oscars on Sunday.

“To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights,” Arquette said in her speech. “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” 

From Variety 

Those remarks touched off a debate that advocacy groups hope will rally the public to their cause and will put pressure on legislators, particularly at the federal level, to pass laws designed to end income discrimination. They note that women on average make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, and the gap widens with age and extends to nearly every industry.

Seems like every time there’s some big awards show, like the Academy Awards, or some other big celebrity culture event, one of the big celebrities there takes the time to weigh in on one of the big issues today. And because of the internet, social networking, blogging and how dominant celebrity culture is today, these events and speeches just get played up that much more today. So what actress Patricia Arquette did while receiving her 2015 Academy Award, is nothing new. Publicly coming out in favor of what is known as pay equity and closing what is called the gender pay gap.

I at least believe if you’re a true feminist, you believe in equality of opportunity for men and women. And what men and women do with those opportunities is up to them. But if you’re more of a Socialist, or a radical feminist, you somehow believe that men making more money than women is somehow unfair. Sexist even, even if the reasons why the men are making more money had nothing to do with gender. But what they do for a living, or how they prioritize their lives. How they raise their kids and the relationship that they have with their wives and the roles that they plays in their kids lives.

If the question is should men, or women make more money than their counterparts simply because of their gender. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans would say definitely no. Some at least on the Far-Right, might say that the woman’s place is in the home raising her kids and taking care of the household and being obedient to their husbands. While some on the Far-Left, like radical feminists will say that women are superior than men. And should make more than men anyway just because they’re women.

Men making more money than women and vice-versa, is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s only a bad thing if they are making more money than the other simply because of their gender. Radical feminists, somehow view men making more money than women as somehow discriminatory, sexist even. Even if men are making more money because of how they prioritized their lives. And kept working throughout, without taking paternity leave to raise their kids. Which some men actually have done, taken time off to take care of their babies. What we should do is make sure that both American men and women are getting the opportunities to do well in life. And what they do with those opportunities is up to them.

Greg Hengler: Catherine Moleski On Britain's 'Free Healthcare"'

Source:The New Democrat

Social Democrats and single payer health insurance and health care supporters would do themselves a huge favor and perhaps even risk building their support for their movement if they were simply accurate if not honest about how the say their system would be paid for and stop calling it free. There's no such thing as free anything that government provides. Even if they borrow the money to pay for some service they are giving their people, their people still pays for that in interest on the national debt. When you are spending other's people's money even for them, they are paying for the services that you give them.

Contessa Brewer who is not exactly a genius and generally does realty TV and technology related reporting and so-called human interest stories and not hard news, figured out pretty quickly that the U.K. NHS or National Health Service in Britain is not free and neither is their public health insurer that NHS also runs. It is paid for by British taxpayers and they pay for their own health care, just like Americans pay for there's. But Americans generally pay for their health care out of pocket or through their private health insurer. The British pays for their health care in taxes.

Show me free government services and I'll show you a beach house with an ocean view located in Minnesota. I would prefer however that you go first though, because producing a beach house with an ocean view in Minnesota would at the very least be a tall order. I would probably have better luck trying to swim from New York City to London, England. The whole Milton Friedman line about spending other people's money is perfectly appropriate here. Because money that government spends of behalf of it's people or even at their expense, does not come from some Monopoly game.

Money that government spends for their people doesn't magically appear from thin-air or some genie wiggles their finger and it suddenly appears. Or they print counterfeit money, well I hope about the counterfeit part, because government does so many things in secret, who knows what they are doing. But we do know that we pay for whatever they're doing supposedly on our behalf through either taxes, fees or interest on the debt. Government services are as free as cable bills or smart phone bills. Meaning not at all and people who want a government that is big enough to manage our lives for us, need to acknowledge that, if they actually want to have the big government they talk about.

The Washington Post: E.J. Dionne: 'The Resurgent Progressives, Return of The New Left'

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with most of what EJ Dionne said in his column today. I thought his best line was “that to have a vibrant middle you need a vibrant Left and Right countering each other. To give the middle and again I’m talking about the American political spectrum if you are having trouble following along, you need both a strong Left and Right for the middle to be able to pick and choose what they like about both sides and put them into their own politics and how they look at the issues.

In the 112th Congress we were in a right-wing state of mind politically especially as it related to the economy. With the Right always on the offensive with the Left always on the defensive defending things they care about. And then settling for the best among bad alternatives to compromise with House Republicans. The 2011 debt ceiling known as the Budget Control Act that was all about budget cuts and no new revenue. Not even from tax reform is a perfect example of that.

So that is why I as a center-left Liberal Democrat, a real Liberal, I am not worried about the Progressives, or Social Democrats on the Far-Left lets say coming out strong in 2014. And pushing for things like. a minimum wage increase that I support if it comes with a tax break for small employers. Or talking about what I call the income gap that others call income inequality, because these issues give Liberal Democrats such as myself a big opportunity to talk about things like more job training.

Real educational opportunities for our low-skilled workforce so they can get themselves the skills that they need to live in economic freedom and be able to get themselves off of public assistance all together. Which is exactly what will happened if our low-skilled workers and low-skilled unemployed were able to do that. And they wouldn’t need public assistance at all which is the right way to make savings in public assistance. By having fewer Americans who actually need it.

I’m not worried about the Progressive-Left or the more socialist minded Far-Left emerging strong in 2014. Because unless they come from very strong Democratic or Progressive leaning House districts, or states, they won’t be on the ballot for the most part in 2014. And the center-left Liberal Democrats will be in those districts in the states. And these campaigns will give Democrats an opportunity and choices and decisions to make. About where we want to go as a party in the next few years. Remain as a center-left liberal party, or move further to the Left and become more of a social democratic party.

Right Coast: 'Disturbing Trends: Americans Aged 18-29 Have A More Favorable View of Socialism over Liberalism'

"( Zero Hedge ) - In the prior post, we showed a presentation that looked at America from the perspective of a corporation and how it would...

From Right Coast Conservative

I don't know if I buy this. Yes there are young leftists in America (Democratic Socialists) who look up to Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Dennis Kucinich. Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and many other leftists and leftist groups. But there's also there's anti-big government mood in America of people who are under fifty or a little over even, that they don't want big government in their boardrooms and bedrooms and in their personal lives. As we are seeing with all the young people who now run or own small business's and startups. 

Young business owners and managers don't like high taxes and regulations and would like more freedom to live their lives and handle their own affairs. As we are also seeing with how young people feel about tolerance as it comes to homosexuality, same-sex-marriage, even, how legalizing marijuana is now popular with my generation and people younger as. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have picked up on in their presidential campaigns.

There is this anti-big government mood that even looks Anarchist with a lot of young Libertarians that follow Ron Paul. But thats not the movement that Gary Johnson has picked up on as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. What his campaign is about is not gutting the Federal Government but making it leaner and making it more effective and less centralize. Not ending social insurance programs, but giving the people and States more power and flexibility and the ability to run them. Thats what he's running on. There are young leftists where socialism looks good to them. But to say thats where the mood of young people is right now, is I believe a big stretch as someone whose still young myself, relatively.

News One: Boyce Watkins- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr.: 'Leads The Charge on Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10/Hour'

Source:Wikipedia- News One reporter Boyce Watkins.

"Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is leading the fight to increase the minimum wage.  The congressman would like to see every American get a wage of at least $10 per hour, which is an increase from the current rate of $7.25 per hour.  President Barack Obama promised that the minimum wage would be over $9 per hour by this year, but he has not been able to make it happen.

Jackson is citing President Obama’s campaign promise and is promoting his wage increase as the Catching Up Act of 2012.    Jackson notes, however, that even an increase to $10 per hour would not match the real wage that was paid in 1968 (adjusted for inflation).

“I’m calling on President Barack Obama to honor his campaign commitment of 2008 to stand behind legislation that raises the minimum wage for the American people a little more than he requested in 2008 because the numbers and the economy reflect that $10 is not an unreasonable starting point,” Jackson said at a June 6 news conference.

Ralph Nader, a former presidential candidate, has backed Congressman Jackson on the issue as well.

“The minimum wage increase used to be the signatory dynamic of the traditional Democratic Party since they got it in 1938. That’s how decayed they are,” Nader said. “You’re fighting their desire to win the election up against their inherent caution and cowardliness to do anything other than raise more money and put more insipid ads on TV.”

I spoke with Congressman Jackson this morning, along with his father, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.  The only thing wrong with Congressman Jackson’s proposal is that it shouldn’t be a proposal at all.  The truth is that the minimum wage should have surpassed $10 per hour years ago, and we should be embarrassed to live in a nation that thinks that $400 per week is too much for someone to receive after working a full-time job.

Capitalism and free enterprise are powerful economic boosters.  America became the richest nation in the world because of our ability to inspire investment and innovation.  But the risk of adopting unfettered capitalism is that when it is unregulated, capitalism is designed to enslave a perpetual underclass.  Capitalism doesn’t care about the elderly, the sick, the poor or the handicapped.  It is only our collective conscience that creates a society that is beneficial to everyone, and that conscience is communicated through our legislators.

To the extent that our politicians have been kidnapped by corporate money, there is little hope that Congressman Jackson’s legislation will ever be passed.  At the same time, it can be successful if people take the power back from those who’ve become corrupted.  After we get the minimum wage up to $10, perhaps then we can start working to get a wage that actually allows families to survive." 

From News One 

I actually agree with Representative Jackson here, (perhaps for the first time in my life) the minimum wage should be increased. 

So-called economic Conservatives/Libertarians always argue that it should be the free market that should decide of wages and benefits of all American workers. But the fact is they don't want that. They want management to be able to decide how much they should be able to play their workers. 

Employers are at best 1/4 of the entire private market in any free society. The rest of the market is made up of labor, consumers, and the government. If you let the entire private market get to decide and have to work together to decide what workers would get paid, you probably wouldn't see low wags in any developed, free society in the world, including in America. 

The Daily Caller: Nicholas Ballasy- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr: 'President Obama Should Declare a National Emergency'

Source:The Daily Caller- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr (Democrat, Illinois) talking about a direct government jobs program.

"Jesse Jackson Jr Obama should declare a national emergency." 

From The Daily Caller

Representative Jesse Jackson who's not shy when expressing his opinions (similar to Muhammad Ali, who he resembles) he's one of the most vocal members of Congress we have as far as expressing exactly what he's feeling, his opinions are always clear. And I'll give him a lot of credit for that, he's one of the most honest members of Congress that we have. (Which is like being the best rapper from South Dakota) 

Whether you agree or disagree with Representative Jackson (from Chicago) or not, I generally disagree with him, Representative Jackson who is with the so-called Progressive Caucus (closeted Democratic Socialists, in actuality) a bit left of myself. (To put it mildly) And I'm a Liberal Democrat. 

What Representative Jackson is talking about here is having President Obama essentially declare a state of emergency as it relates to the American economy. That our economy is so bad that so many people are unemployed right now, that the Administration can't wait for Congress to (get back from playing golf or raising campaign money) solve our economic problems. That President Obama has to step in and solve these problems on his own. And essentially try to solve these problems and implement his American Jobs Act by executive order. 

Executive orders aren't laws (otherwise they would be called executive laws) they can be repealed simply by Congress. The House and Senate coming together to repeal them and with a divided Congress, thats not likely, unless the President writes and executive order thats clearly Unconstitutional and is very unpopular. 

The problem that the President would have is essentially implementing new law constitutional or not, Representative Jackson has called Congress a "Rebellious Congress" similar to the times of the Civil War. That Congress wants to prevent the President from passing any new agenda by essentially not doing anything, that the House has blocked the American Jobs Act by not taking it up. And the Senate Republican Leadership, even though they are the Senate minority, has blocked the AJA with the cloture rule. 

It takes sixty votes in the Senate to debate or pass anything. So what Representative Jackson is saying is that President Obama should circumvent Congress and implement the AJA on his own administratively on his own and bypass Congress. Saying that Congress won't get around to passing the AJA or any jobs bill, we have almost no economic or job growth in the Country right now. We have 9.1% unemployment and that the President should declare a national economic emergency and deal with these issues on his own with his Administration, because no one else is prepared to deal with these issues. 

This is a very risky advice that could bring Congressional investigations. (House and Senate) I don't see how the President could do this without bringing a lot of heat to him (while he's up for reelection) and causing a lot of political problems for him that President Obama doesn't need. 

What the Obama Administration should be doing is trying to pass the AJA in several different steps: focusing on infrastructure investment in one step. Regulatory reform in another step. Tax reform in another step. 

Congress has already passed three trade agreements and then tax reform. Thats the best shot that President Obama has at passing a jobs bill. 

Paul Krugman: 'It's Not Fair That Some People Are Rich'

Source:Paul Krugman Blog- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, talking about wealth inequality.

"The anecdotes in Paul Krugman's book Conscience of a Liberal destroy many of the myths about the Canadian system. It is mystifying that people talk about how long people must wait for hip replacements in Canada, but 2/3 of the hip replacements in the United States are already provided by Medicare. The United States healthcare system will be much better funded, so our system will be much better. 

There is not a hiring market for CEOs. They are paid based on the recommendations of a committee that is appointed by the CEO. In the 40s and 50s, this lead to incomes that was 30 or 40 times higher than the average worker. Now it is more like 350 times higher. There was a lower threshold for outrage back then. They didn't like that people were getting laid off when the CEOs were paying themselves so much. 

But now the political climate has changed. Now, if times are good, then they get a huge cut of the profits. If times are bad, then they are let go and they get a multi-million dollar severance package. This type of thing pervades the economy. Just look at people's expectations for equality in the workplace. It just isn't there, and that is because the climate has changed. 

In most rich countries, income is fairly equal. In poor countries, there is a wide distribution in income. If you look at America, they are somewhere in between. They are moving away from the Scandinavian countries and looking more and more like Latin American countries like Brazil. In Brazil, traffic is terrible, but the rich don't care because they always travel by helicopter. 

The problem isn't just that the rich have siphoned off all of the wealth of the past few decades, it is that there is a disintegration of society." 

From the Paul Krugman Blog 

When it comes to deciding what type of economic system a country should have, there are some things that have to be decided first. 

What's the best economic system for your particular country and you can look at other countries for ideas as well. But that doesn't mean what works in another country will automatically work in your country. What works in Canada, or America or Sweden might not work in France, Brazil or Mexico. 

You need to figure out how much freedom and ability if any, you're willing to give your population to deicide what type of life they are going to have and how much quality of life they'll be able to achieve. And how much taxes they are going to pay if any, how much assistance from government will be provided if any, for people who at the time can't quite make it on their own. 

How much regulation if any you're going to have, the rules of the road that individuals and business's will have. Will you have a private sector or not or a combination of a private-public sector economy, that Europe has.

Personally I believe in the economic system that America had up until ten years ago where people were able to make as much money as their skills and production would allow legally. Where people paid taxes based on their income, the more you made the more you paid essentially. And where government regulated how individuals and business's interacted with each other to prevent and punish abuses. And where we made things in America instead of shipping jobs oversees. 

To now where we have a system where the more you make, the more taxes you can escape from paying and get the biggest benefits in tax cuts. And where we have now a free and unfettered market thats not regulated very well, take Wall Street for example: a big reason for the Great Recession of 2008 that we are still struggling from. 

But I'm also not in favor of a socialist state whether it's Marxist Socialism, where the State owns the means of production in society and there's very little if any economic freedom for the people and there isn't any private sector. Take North Korea more of a 4th World country than a 3rd World country and easily one of the poorest countries in the World. 

I'm also not in favor of a social democratic economy, where even though there is a private sector, but where it's highly taxed (by American standards) and highly regulated (again, by American standards) and where the Central Government essentially collects all of the revenue in the economy and passes out its benefits to the people it feels needs its the most to finance an expansive welfare state, where you can essentially make a good living collecting Unemployment Insurance. (Take Sweden, for example) But even Sweden is rethinking their welfare system.

The best economic system for America is and why we did have the strongest economy in the world not just the largest ten years ago, is where everyone has a shot at a good education and can go out in the private sector and make as much money as their skills and production will allow. And pay taxes based on how much you make, where the economy is well regulated but not over regulated. Where the people are expected to be able to take care of themselves but where there's a safety net for people who fall down to help them get up. 

Thats what we had from 1981-2001, except for a couple of recessions and it resulted in the best economy the world has ever seen. Which is why so many former socialist economies have moved in our direction instead of the former Soviet Union. 

Larry King Live: Michael Moore: 'French & American Taxes'

Source:CNN- filmmaker/ political activist Michael Moore, on Larry King Live, I believe in 2009.

"Michael Moore On French & American Taxes"

From CNN

What Michael Moore and his followers don't understand is, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you pay taxes that is you're paying taxes which most Americans do you are paying for all these public services through taxes, which is money coming out of your wallet. 

There's no such thing as free health care, free education, free transportation, free pension or free anything in France, or anywhere else from the Federal or any other government, if you pay taxes. And if you consume services from the private sector, unless someone pays for those services for you you're paying for them out of your wallet as well. 

So when Michael Moore said that France only has a 10% Federal tax rate, he failed to mention all the other taxes that the French pay for to their Federal Government. which is what Larry King followed up on with Mr. Moore by asking him about the other payroll taxes that the French pay for. Maybe the only time I've ever been proud of Larry King for anything.

Also if you pay taxes, you're not only paying for the public services that you pay for, but you're paying for the public services that people who don't pay taxes consume. Because they don't make enough money to pay income taxes. So you're working to support yourself and your family and to pay for the public services you receive. But you're also working to pay for the public services that people who don't pay income taxes receive. 

The question is not whether we should pay taxes or pay for services that we receive in the public or private sectors or not. That question has already been answered, of course we should pay for the services that we receive. 

When me make our points in debates like this and and try to lay out what's the best vision for America and what America should like, we should stay as close to the facts as possible and speak to what we know. And not use terms like: "Europeans get free health care, education and other services". Because like anyone else if they pay taxes, they are not receiving those services for free. They are paying for them through taxation.

If Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists in America and Michael Moore would fit this category, ever want to be taken seriously and have real political power where they are at the very least a dominant faction in one of the major political parties, or have enough political support to run a government which includes both Congress and the White House, they got to stop putting out all these falsehoods and stick to the truth. And not just say: "Well it's really not free, but we call it free, because it comes from government and you're free from having to pay for those services in the private sector. " Because the fact is if you're paying for government services, you're paying for those services! 

Government services are not paid for them out-of-pocket with a bill and receipt like you would at a store, or when you sign up for lets private insurance, but you're paying for those services through taxes and generally payroll taxes. So you run a political campaign and layout everything you want to provide to the people and say all these things will be free, you're not telling the truth. And if you know those services aren't free, because they're being financed through taxes, you're even lying to people you say you want to help.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.