Now This News: 'What If Fox News Covered Donald Trump The Way It Covered Barack Obama?'

Source:Now This News- The world of Sean Hannity, is like a planet in itself.

Source:The New Democrat

"What if Fox News covered Trump the way it covered Obama? It would look like this:

Imagine if Fox News Channel reported Trump news today like it used to report on the current events of President Obama's administration. US news today is as splintered as ever. When it comes to politics news, President Trump prefers Fox News over CNN TV, and right wing media like Fox News prefers him back. This NowThis News videos shows what it might look like if Fox News dropped its media bias on air to accurately report on Trump today and the current White House. How would Fox News report on the affordable care act, health care, and the justice department in this twilight zone? What would Sean Hannity say about Trump? The Trump Obama media split continues to have long lasting effects.'

Source:Now This News

Just on a personal note: you get to see Kirsten Powers in the first part of the video when she was at Fox News up until I believe 2016. If you watch Anderson Cooper or Don Lemmon on a regular basis on CNN, ( which I'm sure Fox News viewers see as part of the enemy of the people ) you know that she's one of their regular political commentators now and hopefully life is a lot better for her where she no longer has to worry about being the only Liberal and being stuck in between two right-wingers wondering what the hell is she doing here. You also see Mary-Catherine Ham, who is part of an endangered political species in America known as Conservatives, who is part of the Never-Trumper wing of the Republican Party, but never afraid to take on Far-Leftists either. If you watch Jake Tapper especially The Lead everyday, you know that she's now one of CNN's political commentators as well.

I believe the video says itself, but I as a blogger I feel a need and duty to say what I think about so-called Fox News. ( Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron to equate Fox with news at this point )

What would it be like if Barack Obama inherited the exact same economy that Donald Trump did as President, with the same professional and personal background that The Donald has, the same personal character ( or lack of character ) that The Donald has, the same record, personal behavior that The Donald has, making the exact same, the worship of authoritarians, ( whether they're left-wing or right-wing ) the same inability to confront authoritarian regimes where he might or does have business interests in, even though he's now President, and the rest of the irresponsible actions and statements that President Trump has made in just two years, if this was the record of President Barack Obama in his first two years, how would Fox News cover him:

Well, to start and House Republicans did win back the House after the the first two years of President Obama and if he had the exact same record as President Trump and inherited the exact same economic and world conditions as President Trump, House Republicans would've impeached President Obama by now, unless there were 20-25 vulnerable House Republicans saying that they're not ready to vote on impeachment yet. And Fox News would be demanding that the House impeach the President even if they knew it had no shot in hell at going anywhere in a Democratic Senate. And any House Republican that steps up and says they're not ready to vote for impeachment, the Sean Hannity's of the world would be calling out those Republicans on the air and perhaps giving out their phone numbers, emails, and even home addresses, and trolling the hell out of those Republicans.

Fox News, at some point in 2016 whether it was Roger Ailes or someone else at Fox News made the business decision that they're in bed with Donald Trump regardless of what he does and is accused of and they'll do whatever they can to defend him, just as long as President Trump and his administration sticks with the Far-Right and continues to push their agenda. And every time that President Trump either publicly kisses the ass of a dictator or orders one of his deputies to commit illegal acts ( which are in the Mueller Report ) they pretend that those things never happened, blame it on Barack Obama or play what about. That's just the situation that we're in right now when it comes to cable news and FNC's role in American media.

The Daily Signal: Fred Lucas- Rallies: 'What's The Legacy of The Tea Party?'

Source:The Daily Signal- "Then-Representative Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a tea party rally March 16, 2010, near the Taft Memorial in Washington, D.C. Pence, now vice president, was an early supporter of the decade-old movement. (Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images)"

Source:The New Democrat

"It was Tax Day 2009 when citizens gathered in 850 cities across the nation for tea party rallies protesting the recent $700 billion federal bailouts of banks and automakers, an $800 billion economic stimulus package, and, more broadly, government deficits and debt.

On April 15 this year, Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party groups, will sponsor “Stop Socialism, Choose Freedom” rallies across the country.

On the movement’s 10th anniversary, the phrase "tea party” is seldom used, but organizers there at the beginning say the spirit and principles continue—even as the country continues to face mounting fiscal challenges.

One reason tea partiers aren’t “outside protesters” today is that many of the citizens who never before had been involved in politics rose to prominence in the Republican Party. "

Read the rest at The Daily Signal

"10 Year Anniversary of Tea Party Patriots"

Source:Tea Party Patriots-  Jenny Beth Martin: Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action.

From Tea Party Patriots

To completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) when the Tea Party first started during the spring or summer of 2009 after Barack Obama became President with large majorities in Congress ( House and Senate ) the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress was working on health care reform after passing their stimulus, during last stages of The Great Recession, I as a Classical Liberal ( the real Liberals ) had a mild respect for what was called the Tea Party.

If there were any Republicans at all that were concern about President George W. Bush's and his Republican Congress's borrowing and spending, it was these hard core fiscal Conservatives. Who didn't like borrowing 700 billion dollars to expand Medicare. Who were concern about all the borrowing that they were doing for Afghanistan and Iraq. Who didn't like Federal Government's increase role in public education with No Child Left Behind Law. Who didn't believe the two Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would ever pay for themselves. The problem that they had and that the rest of the country had was that there weren't simply enough of them in Congress to stop the Republican Party's borrow and spending during the Bush Administration.

I still had a mild respect for the Tea Party movement during the first two years after Republican won back the House in 2010, because the national debt and deficit were huge issues for them. Without the Tea Party Caucus in the House, the budget deficit that was already a trillion-dollars when Barack Obama became President, doesn't get cut in half during President Obama's term. Because the Obama Administration weren't interested in those issues for the most part. They were concern with economic and job growth and getting the economy back to full recovery and not believing that you can do that while doing deficit reduction at the same time. It was the Tea Party that gave us those real budget savings and reforms in 2011 that allowed for the deficit to come during the final five years of the Obama Administration.

But go back to 2013 and ever since, the Tea Party or whatever is left of it is nothing more than the hard-core, rabid and hyper-partisan wing of the Republican Party, that only seems interested in winning elections and electing as many Republicans as possible. And they don't care what they have to do to win those elections including voter suppression and intimidation to prevent young Democrats ( especially ) from voting in competitive elections. And they'll do anything to win including working with foreign nationals to get dirt on their opponents, or throwing out their conservative constitutional principles like having to do with fiscal conservatism, limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances, morality even. ( Death to the family family values Republican Party ) Today the Tea Party, is nothing more than part of Donald Trump's Far-Right Nationalist base, along with The Heritage Foundation and that's where whatever respect that I ever had for them dies and won't come back.

C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Amity Shlaes: Calvin Coolidge

Source:C-SPAN- You could probably call Amity Shlaes, the official historian for President Calvin Coolidge, as well as the President of the Calvin Coolidge Fan Club, because you'll have a harder time finding a bigger fan of Calvin Coolidge, than Amity Shlaes. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Our guest is Bloomberg syndicated columnist and author Amity Shlaes. She discusses her soon to be released biography of the 30th President of the United States, titled "Coolidge." She traces the life of Calvin Coolidge from his early days in Plymouth Notch, Vermont through his presidency and ultimate return to New England where he died at the age of 60."

 From C-SPAN

 Neoconservative supply siders ( let's say ) like to point back to President's like John Kennedy and Calvin Coolidge as references to argue for their ideas when it comes to taxes and economic freedom and say that President Kennedy and President Coolidge cut taxes across the board deeply and say that it worked then and those taxes paid for themselves, so it would work again. The problem is that they leave out several key points and facts.

 The U.S. Government even if you account for inflation would be 59 billion dollars today back in 1928, because we didn't have the public safety net that we have today and our defense budget and responsibilities were nothing like they are today in the 1920s. America, was an isolationist country and if people fell on hard times and weren't independently wealthy or had a lot of savings, they were completely dependent on public charity or their friends and families to get through those rough times. We weren't a world power yet at least in foreign affairs. Our current Federal budget is over 7 trillion dollars, because we have such a large military and safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars just by themselves.

 And the other thing supply siders get wrong about President Coolidge, is that he cut the budget to pay for his tax cuts. President Lyndon Johnson when he and Congress cut taxes across the board in 1964, they paid for those tax cuts by cutting loopholes in the tax code. When supply siders cut taxes whether it was President Ronald Reagan in 1981 or President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, they cut taxes deeply across the board, while increasing Federal spending as well. President Reagan, in defense and in law enforcement. President Bush, in the military, the so-called War on Terror, as well as education and in entitlements with the Medicare prescription drugs program. And both those President's ran large budget deficits during their entire presidencies, because their tax cuts obviously didn't pay for their new Federal spending.

 Cutting taxes to expand economic growth, create jobs, and expand economic freedom is an legitimate argument and point of view, but if that's your approach approach to economic policy, you need to be knowledgeable and honest enough to know that tax cuts by themselves don't pay for themselves. Especially when you're cutting taxes primarily for investors who put that money away instead of spending it. President Calvin Coolidge, was a true fiscal Conservative because he didn't want a large Federal budget, he wanted taxes low, but when he cut taxes he made sure those tax cuts were paid for by cutting spending, so he wouldn't run budget deficits as President. Which is what supply siders don't seem to even know about President Coolidge, or don't acknowledge those facts about him.

The National Review: Kevin Williamson: 'The Nationalism Show'

Source:The National Review- "President Trump greets supporters at a Make America Great Again rally in Wheeling, W.Va., September 29, 2018."

Source:The New Democrat

I think Kevin Williamson nails what a Nationalist is in this paragraph here:

"To the extent that 2016 vintage nationalism has produced a policy agenda at all distinguishable from the old Republican stuff, it is anti-capitalist and anti-liberal: in favor of trade restrictions and suspicious of big business, especially banks, anti-immigration, anti-elitist, longstanding tendencies to which American populists from William Jennings Bryan to George Wallace and Ross Perot have been stubbornly attached. That these represent an orientation toward the actual national interest is not obvious: Tariffs function mainly as a sales tax on American consumers and as a crutch for certain U.S.-based firms that wish to be protected from foreign competition. There is more to a nation than its economy, but markets are national institutions, too, and far from the least important of them. Hostility toward these does not serve the nation, even if it serves the interests of some of the nation’s people."

From The National Review

From Wikipedia

"At a rally for Sen. Ted Cruz in Houston, President Trump said a "globalist" is a person "who wants the globe to do well, frankly, but not caring our country so much." He went on to say there is an "old-fashioned" word that he embraced: A "nationalist."

From CBS News

Source:CBS News- President Donald Trump: in Houston Texas last year. 

"Nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example."


Let's be clear: ( to paraphrase Bernie Sanders ) nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. A Patriot is someone who loves their country and what it stands and what the people stand for and believe in. The national values that his or her country believes in. A Nationalist or Tribalist loves their corner of the store ( so to speak ) their faction of the country, the people that they share common political, cultural, religious, ethnic, and racial values with. People who look, talk, act, have a similar if not identical lifestyle as they do. Donald Trump, is not a Conservative or a Patriot: he's a Nationalist and if there is anything at all you can that you can take his word on it's that he's a Nationalist. He's proven that ever since he not just started running for President back in 2015, but you could go back to 2011 when he championed the birther movement.

If Donald Trump loves anyone other than himself, it's his family ( perhaps not his wife ) but I'm willing to grant that he actually loves his kids. And perhaps he loves his voters and supporters in the media that basically serve as his Office of Propaganda and the Trump Information Agency. What's called Fox News is the closet thing that we've ever had to state-run media in America and hopefully we never any closer to that. But Donald Trump doesn't love America and what America stands for. He doesn't see America as the beacon on the hill the shining city on the hill. ( To paraphrase Ronald Reagan ) He doesn't believe in pluralism, liberal democracy, checks and balances. He believes that he can do whatever he wants simply because he's Donald Trump and the President of the United States. Which is how we know that he's not a Conservative and even a Republican at least in the sense as someone who believes in Republicanism.

American Enterprise Institute: Welfare Reform- Why? (1976)

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Paul MacAvoy: member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. 

Source:The New Democrat

"May 20, 1976: This AEI Round Table brings together four experts to discuss whether major modifications are needed in the American public welfare system. Why have welfare costs skyrocketed in recent years? Do these rising costs prove that our welfare machinery is defective? Are there more efficient and more equitable ways to provide for the nation's poor? Can our present programs be improved by minor changes or is a sweeping overhaul required? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the negative income tax? And can proposals to reform our welfare system win political acceptance?

Panelists:

Wilbur J. Cohen — dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan

Barber Conable, Jr. — Representative (R-New York)

Paul MacAvoy — a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers

Abraham Ribicoff — Senator (D-Connecticut)

Moderator:

Robert Bork — solicitor general of the United States

Host:

Peter Hackes"

From American Enterprise Institute

This is the perfect debate that we should be having now today especially when we now have Socialists and socialism on the rise in America in and outside of the Democratic Party, who believe that people shouldn't be forced to work and not just that, but that we should even pay people ( meaning taxpayers ) to not work and pay them well if they choose not to work. Even if they simply don't want to work and would refer to stay home and collect a public assistance check. When what we should be doing instead is not just encouraging low-income and low-skilled Americans to not just work, but get a good education so they can get themselves a good job and not need any type of public assistance at all to pay their bills.

I'll give you just one example of why Progressive is different from Socialist and why Progressives are different from Socialists, and why progressivism is different from socialism, even though there are many of examples of why these two ideological factions are different. And they're not the same political faction with just two different labels. That Conservative is actually different from Libertarian, Theocrat, and Nationalist. And that Progressive is different from Socialist and Communist.

Welfare and poverty in general are the perfect issues to talk about when you're talking about what it means to be a Progressive, because if you're actually a Progressive you believe not just in progress, but creating progress through government action. So if you have a large population of poor people in your country and have a lot of poverty and you're a Progressive, you want to see some progress there. You want poverty to go down dramatically assuming you can't actually eliminate it altogether. Instead of having people in poverty with a public assistance check and other public assistance checks which was the system before the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, you want to actually move people out of poverty and no longer be eligible of public assistance, simply because they make too much money and no longer live in poverty.

I'm not saying that solving the poverty issue in America is easy because if it were it would've solved in the 1960s and we no longer have 1-5 Americans who are eligible for public assistance whether they're working or not. But if we empower not just encourage, but empower low-income Americans to not just work, but to go to school and finish or further their education and even help them get themselves a good job after they now have the skills to get themselves a good job, you'll see poverty go down in America, because you'll now have a well-skilled workforce in your country and there would be no reasons for people to live in poverty, other than that they're lazy or perhaps just irresponsible and simply don't want a good education and a good job. But those people we shouldn't be subsidizing as taxpayers anyway and instead subsidize Americans who don't have what they need right now to live a quality, independent life, but want to be able to do that for themselves.

For people who view themselves as fiscal Conservatives, ( which seems to be a dying breed in Washington right now: fiscal Conservatives ) who are concern about the budget deficit and national debt, you should  be interested in not just welfare reform and welfare to work, because with a lower and low poverty rate in America, you would not just have more people working in America, but more people paying income and payroll taxes and fewer people collecting public assistance. And a lesser need for people to not just work to take care of themselves and their families, but to also subsidize people who either don't work, or work but don't earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families.

Today, we have a budget deficit and national debt that are too big, but we have an economic deficit as well that's part of the income gap in the country where we have too many people who are simply too poor to be able to support themselves in this country and as a result are dependent on both private and  public charity, and being able to work multiple jobs ( if they're working at all ) in order to support themselves.

These are all reasons why we should not only encouraging people who are physically capable of working at all, but going back to school and getting themselves a good jobs. These are all things that we can do with the current public assistance system in this country. Which would be great for our economy have 50-60 million more Americans with good skills and good jobs in this country. But long-term would also be much better for our fiscal outlook. But the best thing of all would be to have all of these people who now have good skills and good jobs.

Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald: 'Our Socialist Socialites'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Democratic Socialists, as well as Hipsters of America, LOL!

Source:The New Democrat

"If there’s confusion about what socialism means in today’s America it should be cleared up by Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s recent article on the hip socialists of New York City. Socialism is mostly a scene—a loosely organized assemblage of youngish people who are connected by a shared aesthetic. That’s pretty much it."

Source:Commentary Magazine

"Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises

Socialist Socialite · Tricks & Sleeves

Locked out of Space"

Source:Tricks & Sleeves- Hum, I'm seeing a tiger on The Moon: now I know I'm high. LOL

From Tricks & Sleeves

It's not everyday that I agree with anything that is written by Commentary Magazine, except when they're critiquing both the Far-Left and Far-Right in America which is what they do along with National Review as two of the last of the great Center-Right publications in America, along with The Wall Street Journal and a few others. The reason why I'm on the Commentary email list is to see articles like this where Abe Greenwald compares the modern socialist movement in America with a social movement, I want to thank God ( even though I'm Agnostic ) for Commentary.

Source:Real Clear Politics- Yeah, right!!! LOL 

Comparing Socialists with Socialites especially younger Socialists is brilliant, because socialism ( however you define it ) is not just a political movement, but it's a social movement. And I mean social in the sense about people socializing with each other. not socializing businesses ( necessarily ) but people getting together for not just a common purpose, but getting together because they have a lot of things in common.

Source:Science Matters- Welcome to the modern New-Left 

And I'll give a great example of that: I'm paraphrasing and even rephrasing here, but it's the old expression that you're socialist when you're younger and somewhat naive, but as you get older and enter the real world in your career and you settle down, you get married, you have kids you become much more conservative ( in the classic and real sense ) especially with your own money and realize that those high tax rates that you were advocating for and even demonstrating for in your 20s, might not seem so groovy or awesome anymore ( depending on your era but now seem far out or far-left, pun intended ) and seem like they're too much.

And you realize that capitalism, is pretty damn good and is the reason why you have the good job that you have today, are able to own your own home, don't have to rely on the government for your news and information, are able to socialize and assemble with whoever you want, whenever you want, without fear of being locked up simply because of who you're socializing with, can afford to have and raise kids now, etc.

That we all grow up as a country as we enter our mid 30s and get even older and realize we all have bills to pay and if we don't want to be dependent on government or pay high tax rates for our economic survival, we not only have to work hard, but need to be very productive and good at our jobs. And the way to do these things is through the capitalist, private enterprise, liberal democratic order and world. Not by trying to overthrow the current government either through democratic or revolutionary means.

Whether it was the Hippies from the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s or what was Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, to the Bernie Sanders Movement of today, or the Beatniks from the Silent Generation from the 1950s we've always had at least since the 50s a movement of young hipster radicals who are the coolest and hippest people around, as well as the most politically radical as well, at least coming from the Left.

Hipsters who are not only devoted to their political causes ( until they grow up and enter the real world ) but who are dedicated to their social movement and culture and being the coolest person around who is always part of the current hipster wave if not on top of it. Who look down at people who hard for a living and are successful in life and just view them as part of the imperial, fascist capitalist regime. ( I'm a little rusty with my 1960s and 1970s New-Left vocabulary )

Socialism, has never just been a political movement and it's never just been a political movement in America either. The hippest people in America and outside of America are either Socialists or people who pretend to be Socialists, but in real-life are very wealthy and have made a lot of money for themselves who go out-of-their-way to avoid paying high taxes. And I'm thinking of the Jane Fonda's of the world and other so-called Hollywood Leftists who has been independently wealthy at least since the early 70s if not longer from her great career in Hollywood.

So-called Hollywood Leftists and other hipster Socialists have been around forever and just goes to my point that the coolest people around tend to be Socialists, not that they're aren't on hipsters on the Right: Libertarians, are a great example of that, but the coolest people around tend to at least officially view themselves as one type of Socialist or another. But along with Hollywood Leftists I tend to not take them very seriously and have much respect for them with Bernie Sanders and few others being exceptions to that.

Because again for a lot of these people being a Socialist tends to be a phase for them, but also the most left amongst us in America also tend to be the hippest and are in on all the latest trends  and in on all the latest fashion statements and if anything author those statements themselves whether it's clothing, new technology, coffee, marijuana, whatever it might be. All these great things that come from our capitalist, private enterprise system.

So-called hipster leftists are like the environmentalists who drives a SUV, or the animal rights activist who wears leather jackets and other leather clothing: I mean, who do they think there're fooling or even bullshitting. But Socialists have always represented more than just a political movement in America and outside of America and always will.

Federalists vs. Unitarians: The Great Debate About The Role of Government

Source:Slide Player- The first Federalists. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

From Wikipedia 

“Would I Be a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist” 

Source:Scott Bradley- question for Scott Bradley.

From Scott Bradley

Source:CIMS Cougars- The first Federalists 

Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[5]

Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Argentina, and Australia. Some also today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states."

Federalism, is a big part of my own personal politics and how I describe myself politically. I just go with Liberal or a Liberal Democrat as someone who believes in liberal democracy, ( not the Democratic Party, necessarily ) but someone who believes in individual rights, limited government, separation of powers, decentralization of authority, equal rights and justice: the values that comes from a liberal democracy. I like the term Liberal-Federalist as someone who believes in liberal democracy, as well as the three levels of government: Federal, state and local, but who also believes in liberal democracy and again the individual and equal rights that comes from a liberal democratic federal republic.

From Wikipedia

"A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers. A large majority of the world's states (165 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]

Unitary states stand in contrast with federations, also known as federal states. In federations, the sub-national governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government.[3]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such power is delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing devolution (England does not have any devolved power).[4] Many unitary states have no areas possessing a degree of autonomy.[5] In such countries, sub-national regions cannot decide their own laws. Examples are Romania, the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway."

A Unitarian state or Unitarianism ( not the religion, but governmental philosophy ) is the opposite of the federal republic. In a Unitarian government governmental power and in some cases like in a Communist state or Theocratic state, most power governmental and otherwise is centralized with the national government. And in some cases you might have a Unitarian state where you have state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, but where the head of state appoints the people to run the state and local government's.

The Russian Federation today which under their own Constitution is supposed to be a federal republic, but under the Putin Administration they now operate as a Unitarian authoritarian state where President Vladimir Putin is responsible for appointing the governor's of their republics, ( what Russia calls states ) instead of allowing the people in those republics to elect their own leaders. And every Communist state that you will be set up where the national government has most of the power and appoints the people to run the state and local government's, The People's Republic of China, is a perfect example of that.

But a Unitarian state isn't necessarily an authoritarian government. There are social democratic, as well as authoritarian Unitarian states around the world. The United Kingdom, which is one of the great democracies, as well as social democracies in the world is a Unitarian state. In recent years they've delegated more authority to their what we would call state government's. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Kingdom of Sweden, which is also a great social democracy is a Unitarian state. The same thing with the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and I could go on. See, like with Federalists and federalism where you don't have to be a Liberal or Conservative to believe in it, you don't have to be an authoritarian or democrat to believe in Unitarianism. You don't have to be Left or right either. It's just about what type of government you believe in and what's the role of the national government in your country that you want for it.

Scott Bradley: A Law For Everything?

Source:Scott Bradley- Not in a free society?

"A Law for Everything?"

From Scott Bradley

Source:The New Democrat

I actually like this piece from Scott Bradley and I don't mean to be insulting here, but I had him pegged as someone who was more of a Christian-Conservative and not just that but a Christian-Theocrat or Christian-Nationalist who did believe that it was the role of government to not just legislate morality, but to legislate and enforce laws based on fundamentalist religious scripture. So things like alcohol and premarital sex, adultery, along with homosexuality and gambling would all be illegal in a theocracy and that form of government.

But what Bradley is doing here instead is saying that something might be wrong or immoral and not God's will, but doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal. Alcohol is obviously bad for people especially if it's abused, but that alone doesn't mean it should be illegal. And the same thing with gambling, adultery, to use as examples. There's nothing necessarily wrong with premarital sex, but it does violate some people's religious beliefs, but that alone doesn't mean it should be illegal. Which I guess is what Scott Bradley's point would be here.

The great political humorist P.J. O'Rourke once said that he's very socially conservative in the sense as far as how he lives, but he doesn't believe that government should force everyone to live like him, just because his own personal lifestyle is pretty conservative. Me personally, I don't drink alcohol let alone smoke tobacco and I don't gamble, but I would never want government to force other people to make the same decisions that I've made here, especially since they're not hurting anyone else simply by having a drink or smoking a cigarette or gambling their paycheck.

I believe if you're going to have to free society there are certain things and activities that government simply has to put up with in order to protect the freedoms of that society. Including behavior and activities that come with real risk that I've already mentioned and even more like marijuana and even prostitution and pornography. And that government should come in when people are hurting innocent people with the choices that they're making. It's not a question of whether government should legislate morality or not since that question is already moot anyway. But the real question is to what extent and I want government to protract me and every other innocent person from predators, but not try to protect us from ourselves; Which is where I come down as a Liberal.

Scott Bradley: 'Should We Try To Legislate Morality?'

Source:Freedoms Rising Sun- Moot question. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Should We Try to Legislate Morality?"

From Scott Bradley

To answer Scott Bradley's question: no we should not try to legislate morality. At least when it comes to personal behavior and how free adults conduct themselves in their personal lives.

It's sort of a moot question anyway because every civilized country in the world with a functioning government whether it's a developed country or developing country, legislates morality at least in the sense that it lays the rules for how people can interact with each other. To put it simply, we're not allowed to hurt innocent people. We're not allowed to rape each other, physically attack each other, steal from each other murder each other, kidnap each other, commit fraud against each other. We're not allowed to commit these acts and other dangerous acts against innocent people and if we do we face steep legal consequences for doing these things. Which is why we have jails and prisons because we have people who hurt innocent people everyday and have to pay a justifiable price for them.

But that's not my main interest here anyway, because I'm more interested in what government's role if any is when it comes to how people conduct themselves in their personal lives. I'm not talking about people hurting innocent people, but I'm not talking about who people act and do with their own lives and conduct themselves in their personal lives and how much freedom should we have in our own lives. When people can have sex, what we can eat and drink, smoke, the types of entertainment that we can listen to and watch, what we can do with our own bodies and what we can put into our own bodies.

Government already legislates morality and I think Scott Bradley is at least smart enough understand that at least, if he doesn't already know that. The real question is to what extent and should we remain liberal democratic republic or not where personal freedom and autonomy is vast, even if some of our personal choices and activities offends others religious and cultural values. Or do we want big government coming in and telling us who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, who we can marry, what we can put into out bodies, do in the privacy of our own homes and tells us this is what moral and what's not based on some religious and moral code. And even if what we're doing is not actually hurting anyone, it still has to be illegal, because it's immoral according some people's religious and moral values.

And as a Liberal myself I believe it's not the job of government to try to protect us from ourselves, but to protect innocent people from predators and predatory behavior. And as long as people aren't hurting innocent people with what they're doing, government should stay out of the way and allow for free adults to live their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead of big government coming in and telling us what we should believe and how we should think and this is how we should live our own personal lives.

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.

AEI: What is Pluralism?

Source:AEI- From The American Enterprise Institute 

Source:The New Democrat

From Merriam Webster:

"4a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization. b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state."

The question has been asked over and over and has been debated over and over what kind of country is America and what type of government that we have. Are we a republic, are we a democracy, are we a liberal democracy, are we a pluralist society, etc when the fact is there's no wrong answer here.

Source:Slide Share- A pluralist society 

America, is a republic, but we're a certain type of republic. Egypt and China are republics, but we're certainly not Egypt or China. They have authoritarian societies and government's, we obviously don't.  Republic by itself doesn't equal democracy or freedom, it just means that the country is governed by civilians and not the military or a monarchy or some theocracy. America, is a democracy at least in the sense that we elect our political leaders and our political leaders are held accountable by the voters in free and fair elections.

The fact is America is a pluralist society and federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy. The largest most diverse melting pot in the world, the largest and oldest liberal democracy in the world where power is very decentralized unlike Egypt, China or Russia. Governmental power is decentralized through three levels of government. Federal, state, and local, but also with the people because we live in a  free society where the people have the freedom to manage their own personal affairs without having government trying to monitor their activities simply because they see them as enemies of the government or disapprove of their personal activities.

In a pluralist society like America, you don't have one dominant ethnic group. Roughly 7-10 Americans today are still of European background, but we don't have one dominant ethnic group in America unlike Britain, where roughly 8-10 Brits are ethnic English or Germany where roughly 9-10 Germans are ethnic German or go to Asia where most of Japan is ethnic Japanese. But 3-10 Americans aren't of European background. We have large African-American population, a major Asian-American population, a significant Middle Eastern population and I could go on. America is both multi-racial and multi-ethnic which is still one of the great and exceptional things about America.

My personal politics here: I'm not colorblind, anyone who actually says that they're  colorblind and can't even tell what the color of their clothes are, or is simply just blind. I'm not race or ethnic blind, back to my point about color, because anyone who has even decent vision or can see with glasses can see someone's race or ethnicity. What I am is what I could call at least pluralist and individualist. I look at and judge people as individuals, not as members of a particular racial or ethnic group. That old but still great Dr. Martin King quote, where he has a dream that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, I actually believe that and just wished more Americans both on the Right and Left believed that as well. Instead of looking at people as members of groups who should be judged that way.
Source:AEI

Ronald Reagan: Talking About One America and American Pluralism

Source:AZ Quotes- President Ronald Reagan, talking about one America

Source:The New Democrat

“Let me speak plainly: The United States of America is and must remain a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. Our very unity has been strengthened by this pluralism. That's how we began; this is how we must always be. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, anti-Semitism, or bigotry of any kind -- none. The unique thing about America is a wall in our Constitution separating church and state. It guarantees there will never be a state religion in this land, but at the same time it makes sure that every single American is free to choose and practice his or her religious beliefs or to choose no religion at all. Their rights shall not be questioned or violated by the state.

-- Remarks at the International Convention of B'nai B'rith, 6 September 1984”

From Dave Vanness 

"The right quotation can change your life. That condensed idea—expressed in just a few words or a sentence or two—can shift your thinking, trigger an epiphany, and alter your way of seeing the world. The wisest, most experienced, and most thoughtful people in history have left us these little thought-bombs, and this book collects them. Surprising, jolting, discomforting, and comforting insights urge us to live a full, unbridled life, question authority and reality, relate to fellow humans, create, risk, love, live with uncertainty, and stay sane in an insane world.

Poets, philosophers, scientists, musicians, artists, presidents, mystics, activists, academics, and others rub shoulders here and give us the benefit of their hard-earned wisdom, breakthroughs, breakdowns, bad choices, sudden illuminations, and lightning wit. Sharing some of life's most important lessons are William Blake and Bruce Lee, Abraham Lincoln and Lorrie Moore, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Terence McKenna, René Magritte and St. Teresa of Avila, Zelda Fitzgerald and James Baldwin, and hundreds more.

Neatly arranged into topics that everyone wonders about, this inspirational volume is filled with rousing insights and challenging thoughts that will appeal to anyone who is searching, anyone who doesn't fit in, anyone who questions the way things are . . . which is to say, everyone." 

From Amazon 

"Top 21 Ronald Reagan Quotes (Author of The Reagan Diaries)

The  American politician & actor"  

Source:Daily Quotes - The best of Ronald Reagan 

From Daily Quotes

At risk of stating the obvious: does this sound different from any other Republican today who has major power and popularity inside the Republican Party today and not just within his or her own state? You can talk about Senator Jeff Flake and Governor John Kasich, ( to name a couple Reagan like Republicans ) but with all due respect, do either Senator Flake who is leaving office at the end of this Congress and Governor Kasich who is term limited and will be out of office in January, what power and popularity inside of today's Republican party does Senator Flake and Governor Kasich have outside of either Arizona or Ohio.

The modern Republican Party is the Donald Trump-Steve Bannon Nationalist party that picks winners and losers and decides for themselves at least who are the real Americans and who are the Un-Americans. And it's really this simply: you're either pro-Donald Trump and his America First nationalism and are a real American ( according to them ) or you hate America and the so-called real Americans. The Joe McCarthyite-Trumpains versus the rest of the country. 

What President Reagan was talking about here which was part of his speech to the International Convention of B'nai B'rith in 1984 was one America where we're all Americans who love America and what we stand for as a country and our values. Regardless of our race, ethnicity, religion, and any other irrelevant factors about us.

This Reagan speech and quote could've easily been delivered by Dr. Martin L. King in the 1960s when he was talking about an America where his children are judged by the content of their character and not by the color or their skin. Pre-1990 or so African-Americans were a major part of the Republican Party and a group that Center-Right Republicans could compete with for votes. The civil rights laws from the 1960s don't get passed in Congress without Congressional Republicans voting for them in the House and Senate.

Forget about the Republican Party no longer being a conservative party, just look at the big bloated spending bills that this Republican Congress passed in the last two years and the trillions they will be borrowing in their increases in spending and not just in defense, but President Trump's support for authoritarian regimes with Saudi Arabia being the latest today with his America First foreign policy, but they're no longer the party of Ronald Reagan either, with a few exceptions.

Barry Goldwater: On Christian Conservatives

Source:Melissa Blight- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, on the Christian-Right. 

Source:The New Democrat

When you look at Barry Goldwater and his politics, you have to look at Conservatives and conservatism and what Conservatives actually believe believe and what conservatism actually is and what it isn't. There are Conservatives and then there are Conservatives who are very different and don't sound like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley and other Conservatives who represent the Center-Right at least in America.

There are political Conservatives who are conservative in a constitutional sense and they believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. If you want to use the term Conservative-Libertarian that would be fine, but that's what they're about meaning the job of government is to protect out individual rights and protect all of them for all of us and every America including our civil liberties. And not trample on them because our liberties and free choice violates one's religious beliefs like members of the Christian-Right in America.

And there are Religious Conservatives, or Cultural Conservatives, Christian Conservatives. I don't like using the term Social Conservative like the Family Research Council and other groups like that, because my definition of a Social Conservative is someone who believes in conserving our social or personal freedom, not trying to use big government to trample on our personal freedom and civil liberties. Political Conservatives are what's known as Constitutional Conservatives. People who believe in conserving our Constitution, not trampling on it because some of our rights protect what the Christian-Right would call immoral behavior. And not just abortion, but homosexuality, pornography, adultery, entertainment, and unfortunately I could go on.

The Ron Paul's of the world and to a certain extent his son Senator Rand Paul even though he goes to sleep every night with President Donald Trump politically, ( and I mean that figuratively ) represent what's left of the Constitutional-Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian movement. The Conservatives on CNN the so-called Never-Trumpers people like Tara Setmayer, Amanda Carpenter, S.E. Cupp, the faction of the Republican Party that use to dominate the GOP really until George H.W. Bush left The White House in 1993 and the Christian-Right essentially took over that party.

Conservatism, in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution. That's what conservative is about which is conserving what you believe in and value and in a political and governmental sense that means conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Not trying to use big government to erase them, because our individual freedoms violates one's religious and moral beliefs. Christian-Conservatives, are different because they're not about the U.S. Constitution, but instead their interpretations of the Bible and conserving their Christian way of life. And believe that big government has a role to play in seeing that no one lives outside of their religious and moral values and outside of their cultural lifestyle. It's not individual freedom that they're interested in, but their religious and moral values.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of Barry Goldwater and the movement that he represented and still represents today. People who believe in individual freedom period and that it's not the job of big government to decide how free Americans should live in what they do in the privacy of their homes and free time, just as long as they're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. I don't think of people who believe their religious and moral values should be forced on everyone else in America, including non-Christian or even non Protestants or non-fundamentalists. And I don't think of people who believe America is being going to hell since 1965 or so morally and are worried that modern America doesn't look like the America they grew up with culturally, or even ethnically and racially.

C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Irving Kristol: 'What is Neoconservatism's Writings On Politics, Economics & Culture'

Source: C-SPAN- Brian Lamb, interviewing Neoconservative Irving Kristol in 1995 

Source:The New Democrat

"Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests." 

From CSPAN 

"Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (1983)" 

Source:Amazon- Neoconservative Irving Kristol 

From Contemporary Thinkers 

"Neoconservatism is a political movement that was born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.[1][2]

Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East. Many of its adherents became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3]

Critics of neoconservatism have used the term to describe foreign policy and war hawks who support aggressive militarism or neo-imperialism. Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.[4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz.[5] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement." 

From Wikipedia

I agree with the Wikipedia definition as far as where neoconservatism and Neoconservatives come from which was in the 1960s as a response to the growing New-Left ( Socialists ) inside the Democratic Party, who opposed the Cold War and the United States opposition to the communism and also disagreed with Progressive Democrats on the New Deal and Great Society and believed that those progressive programs didn't go far enough. And wanted to move the Democratic Party and the American economy in a socialist direction. So back in the 1960s and 70s, Neoconservatives were essentially Progressive Democrats who moved away from the Democratic Party because of the emerging McGovernite Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

But what I would add to this is that Neoconservatives aren't just hawks on foreign policy who oppose communism and other authoritarian ideologies around the world. They are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more progressive at least compared with Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians in the Republican Party on economic policy, as well as civil rights and other social issues. Instead of calling for the elimination of the safety net like the New Deal and Great Society, Neoconservatives believes in reforming those programs with private market principles and making those programs better.

Welfare to Work from the 1990s, is a Neoconservative idea and you could also argue that it's Progressive as well.

Supply side economics where you cut taxes deeply, but don't pay for them with either budget cuts or raising tax revenue, is another Neoconservative idea.

The George W. Bush Administration was made up of primarily economic and foreign policy Neoconservatives. The 2003 Iraq War, the 2002 No Child Left Behind education reform, Medicare Part D which was an expansion not cut in Medicare that gave is the prescription drug benefit in Medicare, these are all Neoconservative ideas and proposals.

Not arguing that Neoconservatives are Progressive Democrats, they are former Progressive Democrats who are still in sync with Progressives when it comes to foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more hawkish than Progressive Democrats and believe that liberal democracy is such a great thing that it needs to be promoted around the world even though military force. The 2003 Iraq War is a perfect example of that.

But Neoconservatives are not Conservatives at least in the constitutional and Conservative-Libertarian sense as people who want to eliminate the safety net and regulatory state. Neoconservatives believe in a public safety net, but that it should be run with private market principles and used to move people to economic independency and even believe in the regulatory state and having commonsense regulations when it comes to the environment, worker and consumer safety, and tend to support civil rights laws.

Neoconservatives aren't Conservative-Libertarians on social issues or economic issues, and't aren't fiscal Conservatives either. But people who want a strong, functioning, but limited government that is used to just do the basics and help people improve their own lives. And tend to be Federalists when it comes to social and economic government programs. Perhaps Progressive Republicans, would be the best label for Neoconservatives in America.