Real Time With Bill Maher: ‘New Rule, How The Left Was Lost’

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher– telling the Far-Left in America to grow up.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Bill slams this ridiculous new era of mind-numbing partisanship, where simply speaking truth to your own party can make you an instant hero to the other side.”

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Because of America’s crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it. Which means you have a Democratic Party that believes in both liberal democracy, quality of opportunity, equal rights, and equal justice, as well as personal freedom is dangerous, capitalism is racist, free speech is bigoted, minorities and women should be treated better than the majority population and Caucasian men. Because the Democratic Party has a Center-Right and Center-Left, that believes in liberal values that I mentioned before and a Far-Left that believes in the crazy values that I just mentioned.

So America has a Democratic Party that looks and acts like the adults in the room, but only because they are the adults in the room. Who tend to run the Democratic Party and don’t need a gerrymandered district to get elected to anything, who can not just get elected statewide in swing states, but who can get elected statewide in Democratic states. (Where Far-left Democrats can’t, like in California) And a Far-Left that really should be in the Green Party (when they’re not occupying mental institutions) who can’t get elected anywhere, to anything, that doesn’t just have an overwhelmingly Democratic population, but left-wing Democratic population.

I’m not saying America should have a parliamentary political system, because that would make me a crazy leftist as well. But the two-party system is why America has a Democratic Party that has two political factions that simply don’t agree on much, because the Far-Left has nowhere else to go, because they represent such a small percentage of the country. And the Green Party is simply to small for them to get elected to anything, that’s worth anything in America.

Read Full Post »

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

Source: The Cold Turkey– Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn, talking about Prudent Fidel Castro and President Hugo Chavez. 

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Sean Penn talks about Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.”

From The Cold Turkey

For the life of me I don’t understand why today’s so-called Progressives ( radical hippie, Socialists, Communists in actuality ) love affair or admiration with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Progressives are supposed to be people that are about progressive through government action like democracy and yet they defend people, who are anti-democratic. Who’ve attempted to centralize power with their presidencies, in President Castro’s case, have been successful in doing that. President Chavez’s case still trying to do that in the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, still has that official name.

Source: The Nation Magazine– Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )

But if President Chavez is successful, they’ll basically be another Communist Republic in Latin America. He’s already been successful in nationalizing the energy industry, as well as at least certain parts of the media. But Venezuelan Democrats still have media outlets they can go to but in President Castro’s case, it’s official he’s had a Communist State in Cuba for over fifty years. This guy is not a democrat and never has been, he’s not even a Democratic Socialist, he’s a Statist, who wants his people to be subjects of the State. And Hugo Chavez is one of Fidel Castro’s biggest admirers.

Source: The Atlantic– President Fidel Castro ( Communist Republic of Cuba ) and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )

So why would Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, people like Sean Penn who I generally have a lot of respect for, respect him more as an actor ( but that’s a different story ) be standing up for people who are anti-democratic? First it’s Castro, now it’s Chavez, who is next President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation? Who’s not a Communist but certainly a Statist, who’s really Russia’s version of a Nationalist.

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

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

Read Full Post »

Slate: Karina Longworth- The Hollywood Ten Paid The Price For Refusing to Answer The $64 Question

Herbert Biberman & Samuel Ornitz

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I blog about political correctness and what I at least see as fascism on a regular basis. Perhaps one piece a week, because its such an important issue today with free speech coming under assault practically everywhere in America and even on college campus’ where free speech needs to be at it’s strongest so young people can learn and share views with each other and get as good of an education as possible. But just like Caucasian-Americans don’t own a monopoly on racism and other forms of bigotry in America, the Far-Left doesn’t own a monopoly on political correctness and fascism. Back in the late 1940s and really through the 1950s Americans were under attack from the Far-Right in this country for simply believing what they believed and who they associated with.

It started in Congress in 1947 with the House of Representatives starting an investigation with their so-called Un-American Activities Committee doing an investigation about Communists in Hollywood. And sure there were Socialists in Hollywood and perhaps even Communists. But so what. They were also Americans who went to work everyday producing films and other entertainment that had nothing to do with the Cold War and certainly were not on the side of Russia and other Communists states back then. At least in the sense of propping them up and trying to make them look better than they actually were. They were Hollywood employees. Actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, who simply went to work everyday producing a lot of good films that people wanted to see and paid a lot of money to see. Who ideologically were Socialists who backed Far-Left candidates and causes in America.

The Far-Right and right-wing version of political correctness which is a form of fascism is that people who don’t share their view of the world and what America should be and be about and don’t agree with them ideologically, are somehow Un-American. And not deserving of the same constitutional rights as other Americans. Meaning the right-wing and especially Neoconservative fascists on the Far-Right who see Senator Joe McCarthy as a hero and even speak highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin today for his crackdowns on opposition media in Russia and homosexuality in Russia. And are now backing Donald Trump for president. People like Far-Right columnist and author Ann Coulter. Who is the real-life Donald Trump who actually believes what The Donald says. Even if Trump doesn’t believe his own propaganda.

In 1947 you had the House call members of the so-called Hollywood Ten to testify in front of the Un-American Activities Committee and asked what would normally be seen as an innocent question. “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The problem is they were asked to do this under oath and on live national TV. When broadcast news was still an infant. With the whole world (at least in America especially in Hollywood) listening. With Hollywood executives and studio heads being anti-Communist and not able to afford to be associated with Communists or anyone else on the Far-Left in America. With these Hollywood employees having a choice to either plead the fifth and look very suspicious, or admit to being Socialists and risk not being able to work again ever in Hollywood. Even though most of them had kids to take care of and needed to work and earn a living.

The Hollywood Ten weren’t asked if they had committed any crimes or even knew any criminals. Or even associated with organize criminals and mobsters. They were put on trial for their political beliefs. They were considered guilty by association and communist political beliefs. Without any trial even though every American is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free speech and the constitutional right to believe whatever they want to. Whatever you think of political correctness on many of our college campus’ right now that is done by private individuals. People getting together in trying to eliminate and censor ideas that they not only disagree with, but find offensive. What happened to the Hollywood Ten back in the 1940s and 1950s was a form of state-fascism. American citizens put on trial simply for their political views.

Read Full Post »

Constitution Daily: Staff- What’s Next For Free Speech?

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Constitution Daily: Staff- What’s Next For Free Speech?

I’ll tell what I hope happens next for free speech in America which is probably going to sound very sarcastic and cynical and hopefully funny and informative like a good comedian. And then I’ll tell you what I think is going to happen.

What I would like to see happen is the generation that sees socialism and I’m sure other forms of collectivism, what I would like them to do is to grow up. Finally graduate from college and quit one of their three jobs so they can get the hell out of college with a degree that is hopefully worth at least half of what they’re paying for it, on their personal debt card. Start experiencing the real world with a job so they can start paying off their college debt that they’ll probably leave their grandkids to pay off. And realize that not everything that anyone says about anyone, including oversensitive minorities and Socialists off all ethnic and racial backgrounds, is pleasant and nice.

And then also realize they also live in a liberal democracy with a liberal guaranteed right to free speech. And that includes saying negative things about anyone that they choose to. Also realize we live in a very funny country and probably are the comedy capital of the world and come from a long line of sarcastic smart asses. (I sure as hell do) And that not every joke that reflects some negative characteristic about someone or some different race of people from your own is bigoted. Generally it isn’t and someone with a good sense of humor will actually not only get the joke, like it and perhaps even wish they came up with it first. You’re actually doing someone a favor if you get them to laugh about themselves, because you’re actually giving them an opportunity at self-improvement.

So that is sort of my positive angle, or less cynical angle. But I got to tell you that the Millennial’s won’t be done with college at least the people who graduate on time until 2021-2022. So we’re looking at another 5-6 years of Starbucks and Red Bull junkies, protesting about someone wearing a Washington Redskins jersey on campus during Thanksgiving. Or Caucasian man dressing up as Santa Claus during Christmas, or Christmas being celebrated at all during Christmas instead of other religious holidays. Or protesting against Black Friday, because it’s not called Rainbow Friday. With the rest of country when they’re not laughing at these protests, wondering who did these kids have to sleep with to get into college. Or how many professors did their father’s pay off.

Young people especially just need to chill. Don’t drink the extra lathe or frappuccino, or give up that junk and the Red Bull to begin with and perhaps take up pot (where its legal) and relax. Let your brains settle down and even fully develop and with that might come with a sense of humor. And you’ll learn the difference between comedy, even comedy about culture and even lifestyle. And even comedy about ethnicity and race and how that is different from actual bigotry. Where you’re not making fun of characteristics of people and what they do, which is what comedy is. But literally making fun of people because of their complexion, or hair, how their nose is shaped, names, etc. And comedy when is done right regardless of the topic is funny. And bigotry is bigotry.

Read Full Post »

The Hollywood Reporter: Victims of Hollywood’s Blacklist

Source: The Hollywood Reporter– One of the victims of the Hollywood Blacklist 

Source: The New Democrat Plus

I don’t think there’s anything more Un-American and Un-liberal democratic as punishing people simply because of what they believe and their politics. But that is what the U.S. House of Representatives decided to do in 1946-47 and they had a bipartisan coalition to do that. And they had help from the Hollywood industry itself to try to stamp out as people that they saw as Un-American because they had socialist if not communist leanings. These actors, writers, directors and other people weren’t punished because they were doing bad jobs. But because they believed in a more socialistic and collectivist society for America.

Its one thing to disagree with one’s politics and I’m certainly not a Socialist or a Communist and how supporters talk about communism I’m having a hard time telling the difference between communism and socialism. But it’s another thing to say that person or those people are bad simply because they believe there shouldn’t be rich or poor and that we need a more collectivist society and economy where everyone can do well and where there is no rich or poor. They weren’t talking about tearing down the liberal democratic form of government in America and replacing it with an authoritarian state.

If you truly love America and what we stand for as a country, then you love and believe in Freedom of Speech with almost no exceptions. The right for people to believe, think and say what they believe. Without it costing them job opportunities simply because of what they believe. Doesn’t mean people can’t be questioned, criticized and even contradicted over what they believe because that is part for free speech and debate. But you simply don’t blacklist people can cost them jobs simply because of their political beliefs. You judge them based on how good they are for the job that they are a candidate for and their qualifications for that job.
The Hollywood Reporter: Victims of Hollywood’s Blacklist

Read Full Post »

Matthew Hormann: The Hollywood Ten, 1950

Gary Cooper

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I don’t want to sound overly partisan here, but this was one of the ugliest anti-American, anti-liberal democratic, illiberal periods in American history. Where Americans were judged by who they associated with and political causes they supported and political candidates they may have endorsed in the past. Instead of being judged by their character and how they conduct themselves and the jobs that they do and what they contribute to America. And this period of the late 1940s early 1950s look like how elements of today’s so-called Tea Party treat Americans that don’t believe the way they do and share their culture and political values.

This period between 1947 or so when Republicans won back Congress both the House and Senate up until Senator Joe McCarthy’s so-called investigation of supposed Communists in the U.S. Government is Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage Neoconservative Utopia. They accused Americans of supporting things that they claim that they don’t. Which is fascism and telling Americans that they disagree with politically that they are Un-American simply for exercising their constitutional rights of Freedom of Assembly, Speech and Thought. As well as privacy which has never been popular with the Far-Right in America anyway.

People in Hollywood were simply denied jobs and the ability to earn a living simply because of who they may have associated with in the past and political candidates they may have endorsed. Not because of movies that they made or roles that they played and how they played them and how they made movies. But what they did in their personal and free time. Endorsing political candidates that members of Congress both in the Republican Party and Democratic Party and executives in Hollywood saw as dangerous. And this is one of the ugliest periods in American history both in Hollywood and in the U.S. Congress.

Read Full Post »

Bliar 209: The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair

 

New Labour

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

The rise of Tony Blair I at least believe has to do with how he reformed the British Labour Party as Leader of the Opposition in the 1990s before becoming Prime Minister. When the Labour Party lost power in 1979 to the Conservative Party, the British economy was in bad shape. Because it was over-centralized, the economy was over-centralized and was too socialist with the U.K. Government owning so much of the economy and trying to run British industries themselves. The U.K. Government by 1979 owned something like seventy-percent of the economy.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 and the Labour Party which was New Labour took over they didn’t move to renationalize industries and perhaps nationalize British industries that weren’t under government control and ownership before. They didn’t reform the British welfare state by saying that people who were physically and mentally able to take care of themselves and work, no longer had to do that if they even if they were uneducated. He kept in place many Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s economic polices in place instead. And perhaps offended a lot of people in party who were much further to the left of him by doing that.

New Labour is Tony Blair and Tony Blair’s creation. They were out of power for eighteen-years from 79-97 because the British people remembered the state of the economy when Labour left power in 1979. And they also remember how the British economy finally took off and became the economic power that it is today in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And didn’t want to put Socialists in power that try to take the country back to where it was in the late 1970s. So Tony Blair’s challenge when he became Leader of the Labour Party in 1994 was to change the perception of the Labour Party. So it was no longer seen as Marxist, so socialist and central government oriented.

Tony Blair is a student of Bill Clinton and the New Democrats in America. Someone who didn’t want to transform his party into a conservative party. But someone who wanted his party to be a center-left party and not a far-left party. Someone who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take control over their own lives and live in freedom. And not have to live off the welfare state or be forced to live off of the welfare state indefinitely. Blair wanted his party to be seen as a party that would defend the country and protect everyone’s freedom. And was very successful in doing that.

Bliar 209: The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair

Read Full Post »

The American Prospect: Opinion- Paul Starr- The Crash of The New Republic

The American Prospect: Opinion- Paul Starr- The Crash of The New Republic

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I would put it differently and if I was writing for The American Prospect, well if I was writing for The American Prospect, they probably wouldn’t of published what I have to say about The New Republic, because I wasn’t backing the party line. But for the sake of this piece had I wrote this article at The Prospect about The New Republic I would’ve put it differently. I probably would’ve called it The Death of The New Republic: How Chris Hughes Killed a Great Liberal Magazine. And he did it a couple of ways.

Chris Hughes took a great center-left liberal magazine, not a far-left more social democratic oriented magazine like The Nation or The New Republic and turned TNR into The Nation or The Prospect ideologically. You read TNR today and it is very similar to Nation or Prospect or the AlterNet, TruthOut, Salon or any other far-left publication that struggles just to stay in business today. Because they don’t have any advertising revenue. Because they are anti-business if not anti-private enterprise all together.

When Mike Kinsley was running TNR they were still that great center-left magazine. That had solid suspicions about big government in people’s economic and personal lives. Today’s TNR now not only supports a Scandinavian social democratic high taxed welfare state to manage people’s economic affairs for them. But backs Mike Bloomberg’s nanny state and would like to regulate how Americans can eat an drink.The New Republic might not become like The Prospect or Nation financially. Because they do have wealthy backers and are entertainment and tabloid driven with what they want to cover. So that alone might keep them in business. But The Liberal Republic is gone.

The other issue has to do with Chris Hughes himself. He’s a businessman first and comes from the OMG awesome entertainment universe and politics and current affairs is not his meat and potatoes. He goes where the money is and that is probably where TNR is headed with a few political writers left over to tell people what the far-left is thinking. And why middle class Americans are under-taxed and that the Federal Government is too small, states and local governments, as well as individuals have too much power and can’t be trusted and you need a bigger government to take care of them. Which is what you get from The Prospect, The Nation and Salon today.

Read Full Post »

Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: Lyle Denniston: Is The First Amendment on The Side of a Pro Football Team’s Name?

Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: Lyle Denniston: Is the First Amendment on The Side of a Pro Football Team’s Name?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I’ve sort of gone out of my way to avoid getting into this debate because I quite frankly find it stupid. It’s now 2014 and Americans and the U.S. Government has just discovered that the Redskins is a racist name. Even though the franchise has been around since what, 1933 or 32. Give me a break, if Redskins was a racist name, which is what Nigger would be for people of African descent, that it would’ve been thrown out a long time ago. Saying the Redskins is a racist name, is like calling Bill Maher towards Muslims because he criticizes Islam, even though Muslim is not a race, but Muslims are followers of the Islāmic religion. It’s not even worth considering.

But that is just the practical argument. How about this little thing called the First Amendment that protects all Americans right to free speech and allows for people to call themselves essentially whatever the hell they want to and that includes organizations. But even if you say the federal trademark law about profiting from names that some Americans may tend to find offensive, again where was this 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years ago. Why is the name Redskins offensive in 2012-13 when this controversy started and not again decades ago. This is really nothing more than pop culture correctness at its worst.

The Redskins are now getting the Bill Maher treatment from the Far-Left and being labeled as racists. Not by Bill Maher who I imagine is on the side of the Redskins here for First Amendment protections. But a man who just back in September was considered a hero on the Far-Left, is now considered to be a “White Devil” or something. But if you put all of this aside, the fact that Congress is not very good at writing laws and people wonder why they are so unpopular, because even when they do pass laws, they don’t write them very well, but lets the trademark law is constitutional for a second. The fact that they didn’t define what is racially offensive in a name, means the Redskins at the very least will probably, win on a technicality.

Read Full Post »

Carlos Rodriguez: HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher- Center-Left Democrats vs. Occupy Wall Street

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Bill Maher has this idea that since there’s a Democrat in the White House, that President Obama should govern like Dennis Kucinich. What he doesn’t seem to understand, is that President Obama and Representative Kucinich come from two different factions of the party. Barack Obama comes from the adult realist faction of the party. Progressives and Liberals that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, with what’s available to do so.

Dennis Kucinich comes from the dreamer utopian faction of the party, Socialist Hippies from the 1960s, and early 70s and today that haven’t grown up. And see the World that they want to create apparently not realizing what’s possible, but believe everything that they want is possible. And its possible now to turn America into Europe to create their Socialist Utopia. And you got these two competing factions, the adults with the power in the party that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, against the Hippies that want to see the world that they want now.

And if you support any policy that’s different from what the Hippies want, you’re some type of corporate sellout to the Republican Party or something. President Obama is like a father with his only real life family, as well as his kids in the Democratic Party. That help him run the party, plus with millions of adopted children that complain about not being able to have cake for dinner. And throw temper tantrums when they can’t have cake for dinner or have to eat salad with their meat. And tell their parents they hate them when they can’t stay up all night on a school night.

The Socialist Hippies (the Democratic children) in the party that doesn’t have a great grasp on reality, that want everything now and doesn’t understand what Hubert Humphrey called the “Art of the Possible”. So the state of the Democratic Party right now a political party that I’m proud to be a member of is basically two parties and I believe within ten years could become officially two political parties. Which I believe would be good for both American liberalism and progressivism, as well as socialism giving each political movement their own voice.

You have the Liberal Democrats led by the President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership and the DNC. And then you have the Hippie Socialists again from the 1960s and early 70s. And want to bring that movement about today and create their own Socialist Utopia a perfect world. Where there’s no wealthy or poor people, no violence, no war, give peace a chance. Everybody is equal, sounds like a decent Hollywood film or Hollywood fantasy. No bigotry, but the only problem that they have, is that they don’t have a damn clue how to bring those things about. They tell the Leadership “this is what we want now go out there and accomplish that”. Without having any idea of how to bring that about.

Hippy Democrats are like a head coach who wants to have the best team in the league. But doesn’t know what type of system he wants on offense and defense, or what type of players he wants. Or how to write a game plan or run a practice, that these things are just details, right. Sounds more like a great fan than a successful head coach. And then leave it up to the Liberal Democrats the adults in the room to get the job done.

And when the Hippies accomplish some of those goals that the whole party supports, what’s the thanks for the Democratic Leadership, they get called sellouts by their kids the Hippies. Who weren’t even invited to the party because they probably would’ve thrown food or gotten into a fight. Its like giving your kid a corvette as their graduation present. But then getting called as asshole because you didn’t give your son a Porsche. Thats why the Liberal Democrats run the Democratic Party because they are the adults in the room.

Read Full Post »