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Because of America’s crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it.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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Radical Films: U.S. House Un-American Activities- Looking For Communists in Hollywood

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

The House Un-American Activities Committee and then later the Joe McCarthy Government Oversight Committee in the Senate were classic cases of guilt by association. Because they assumed some Americans were Un-American and not deserving of being Americans simply because of people they may have associated with and political positions they may have held. Not because of any illegal activities they have been involved in. Which is how we are supposed to judge people’s involvement in criminal activity.

The United States a liberal democracy where Americans have the right to believe what they believe. And say what they want to say with a few exceptions. Like encouraging violence or libeling people without any basis in fact. Yelling fire in tight public spaces. But for the most part our own politics is our own business. And we are free to either express our own political opinions, or opinions about any other subjects or not. And not be held criminally libel because of what we believe.

But what we got instead from these Congressional communist investigative committees was guilt by association that ruined a lot of good productive Americans lives. And for what, so people on the far-right and people simply just looking for political advancement, Senator Joe McCarthy comes to mind, could have a big issue and use it to advance their own political careers. No matter who they may hurt along the way which is about as Un-American as it gets.

Read Full Post »

VOA News: ‘Rebels With a Cause Slam Corporate Greed’

Source:VOA News– with a look at Rebels With a Cause.

“Two new films focus on fringe groups who take social justice into their own hands. With a tongue-in-cheek approach, the films The East and Now You See Me offer 21st century Robin Hood-type plots where young vigilantes target corporate greed. VOA’s Penelope Poulou has more.”

Source:Encula Rutchel

Sounds like the Symbionese Liberation Army of the 21st Century. The Symbionese from the early and mid 1970s were also New-Left (if not Far-Left radicals) who were fed up with poverty and what they called corporate greed. And saw the wealthy as the main if not only culprit with these issues. And took it upon themselves to kidnap Patty Hearst, the daughter of a very wealthy California family. And would give the Patty back only if her father paid the SLA off. And then the SLA would give the money to poor people in poor Oakland communities and other towns in California. Rebels With a Cause, aren’t kidnappers, but people who also have a similar Robinhood image.

Apparently this movie was first put forward in the fall of 2011 when Occupy Wall Street came out. And they became the New-Left radicals of this decade that were going to fight against what they saw as greedy capitalism and private enterprise. If not capitalism and private enterprise all together. And fight for new wealth redistribution to tax money from the wealthy to take care of the poor. But by in-large there haven’t been any terrorists linked to OWS. Just people protesting for not having permits and causing disturbances, but not actually robbing banks and taking people hostage. Unlike the SLA.

Whether you’re a fan of what’s corporate greed and crony capitalism, or not and I’m sure as hell not as a Liberal, there are ways of fighting bad things and ways not to do that. Violence, almost never accomplishes political objectives when you don’t have the people behind you and you’re just a fringe group.

The way to fights injustice in America, is to have the people behind you and build a movement and get the resources that you need from the people behind you. And then form a protest movement to accomplish your objectives. Publish articles, put together publications about what you’re trying to accomplish and back politicians and political candidates who believe in what you want. And will then fight for it. Instead of violently trying to overthrow the system and creating new victims.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

The New Republic: Cass R. Sunstein- ‘Why Paternalism is Our Friend’

Source:The New Republic– New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (call it a slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:FRS FreeState

“The nanny state is in the news. A lot of people have been outraged by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to restrict soda sizes, recently overturned by a state court, and some people do not much like his proposal to ban cigarette displays in New York stores. If you share the outrage, you should recognize that various forms of paternalism are all around you, and at least some of them aren’t so bad.

Last year, new government regulations required automobile companies to increase the fuel economy of their cars, to a point where the fleet-wide average must exceed 50 miles per gallon by 2025. True, those regulations will reduce air pollution and promote energy independence, but the majority of the benefits come in the form of gas savings for consumers. For those who abhor paternalism, here’s the problem: Consumers can already buy high MPG cars, and many of them just aren’t doing so, even though they might well save money over the life of the vehicle. If the government is making the fleet a lot more fuel-efficient than consumers demand, is it operating as the national nanny, or the Gasoline Police? Should people be outraged about that?

Paternalism comes in a lot of shapes and sizes, and to come to terms with it, we need to offer a working definition. What seems to unify paternalistic approaches, however diverse, is that government does not believe that people’s choices will promote their welfare, and it is taking steps to influence or alter people’s choices for their own good.”

From The New Republic

“New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a two-time Nanny of the Month and 2009’s Nanny of the Year, is back to save us from ourselves yet again!

In order to promote breastfeeding, Bloomberg has ordered all public city hospitals to lock up free samples of baby formula. New mothers who are unable to breastfeed – or simply choose not to – can still get formula, but only after enduring a lecture from a hospital employee on the benefits of the boob over the bottle.

Reason TV’s Kennedy spoke with Susan Burger, a certified lactation consultant, who supports the mayor’s initiative on the grounds that “the real intent of that law is to protect breastfeeding mothers [and] their freedom of choice to breastfeed.”

Source:Reason Magazine– New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (call it a slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg.

From Reason Magazine

Before I get into what I really want to talk about, I’m going to start this post off with a question: What the hell happened to the New Republic? Because before they got new management and Chris Hughes became its new editor, this was a real liberal democratic magazine. The official liberal democratic magazine in America that had a healthy skepticism about governmental power. That all seems to be gone now and now they are sounding like defenders of the state, especially the nanny state.

The current version of The New Republic seems to believe that freedom is dangerous and that it shouldn’t be our goal or the job of government to protect our freedom, but literally to protect the people, as if we are morons or little children and can’t do that for ourselves. And even if that means protecting people from themselves and even locking them up for their own good when they make choices that aren’t in their best interest.

Reading the New Republic now, except for Jeff Rosen who is a real Liberal, is like reading the The Nation magazine or the AlterNet, or listening to the political commentary on MSNBC: it’s “big government knows best and has all the answers and individual freedom and choice are dangerous”.

They are paternalists on the far-left, people who I really don’t even call Progressives any more but paternalists or prohibitionists. Prohibition is a statist idea by the way, but I generally what I call people who think like this whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right, are nanny statists or nanny staters. People who believe that it’s the job of government to protect people even from themselves.

And when you combine paternalism when it comes to personal or social issues with socialism as it relates to economic policy and you believe in things like nationalizing the healthcare and health insurance systems, as well as the retirement system and perhaps even the banking system, maybe even the energy industry and you combine that nanny statism on social issues, you really have what looks like communism. You got a King Kong size big government there to protect people from themselves: “Because big government is our friend and freedom and freedom of choice is our enemy”. That it’s not big government that’s the problem, but that big government is our friend and should direct how we live our own lives.

Paternalism whether it comes from the Far-Left as it relates to the War on Drugs, alcohol prohibition, tobacco, junk food, soft drinks, or whether it comes from the Far-Right as it relates to violent video games or pornography, or trying to outlaw pre-marital sex, or adultery or divorce, it doesn’t work. Because if people want to do things bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it and damn the consequences.

One of the reasons why we have taxes and regulations in America is to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Not to manage people’s lives for them. That if you want people to make healthy choices, you subsidize that and penalize them when they make unhealthy choices.

To respond to the argument that Cass Sunstein is trying to make which really sounds like he’s trying to pick up the pieces for the nanny state proponents: the regulations he’s talking about are regulations regarding businesses, not individuals. Businesses are also not allowed to hire people to whack out the competition for them. That’s also for the welfare for the general public, but that doesn’t help his case.

 

Read Full Post »