Dan Mitchell: ‘Augmenting The Collection of Alexandria O. Cortez Humor’

Posted on May 16, 2019 by Rik Schneider

”

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - Socialist Humor - Google Search

Source:Funny– “Iphone, Memes, and Starbucks: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ PROUDLYINTRODUCES THESOCIALIST IPHONE, SOCIALIST”

“If Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t exist, I might have to invent her since she helps to make socialism such an easy target for mockery.

Though I actually admire the fact that she doesn’t try to disguise her agenda. Like “Crazy Bernie,” she openly and boldly pushes for an ideological agenda that would put the United States somewhere between Greece and Venezuela in the global rankings for economic liberty.

And while that would be a horrible outcome, it does generate the satire for today’s column.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell’s piece at Dan Mitchell  

“A conservative columnist reported a ‘terrifying’ experience at an event featuring Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which horrifying subjects like healthcare and education for children were discussed. Scary!”

alexandria ocasio-cortez is traumatizing to conservatives - Google Search

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert– Stephen Colbert on Representatives AOC

From The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

I guess I have mixed feelings about Freshman Representative ( or is Freshman now considered to be sexist ) Alexandria O. Cortez from New York City and I guess most of them are negative: but if there are any positive reasons about the start to her career in the House of Representatives and political career in general, is that she’s a great reminder that the Far-Left of the Democratic Party is still the Far-Left: another way of saying not ready for prime-time. It’s not that AOC and company aren’t running the Democratic Party yet, or they’re not running the House Democratic Caucus, it’s that they’re not even ready to run these institutions yet.

Before I get into her socialist politics and economic views, let’s just start with Congress first, especially in the House where Representative Cortez and other Freshman House Democrats back up my point on this: it’s one thing to be a Freshman Representative from gee I don’t know, New York City ( just to pick a city ) where maybe 7-10 New Yorkers believed that President Donald should’ve been impeached on day one after Democrats officially took control of the House: it’s easy to do that when you have no political power other than your vote and voice.

A little different when you’re not just in charge of the House Democratic Caucus which is what Nancy Polosi was doing up until 6 months ago, but now you’re running the entire institution other than the minority party and you have members in your caucus that don’t represent New York or anywhere else in the Northeast, or anywhere on the West Coast, but represent Midwestern districts where President Trump isn’t considered the devil there and maybe they don’t like him, but they know he’s up for reelection in 2020 and they kind of think what’s the point of impeaching the President, when not a single House Republican will vote for it and perhaps not even a single Senate Republican will vote for conviction, when you would need to hold all 47 Senate Democrats and pick up 20 Senate Republicans for conviction. And they also know that you might lose 5 or more Senate Democrats, if the House impeaches.

Monday morning and sideline quarterbacking is one of the oldest games in Washington: easy to say this is what I would do if I were in charge. Another to not just make a real decision knowing what the consequences of that decision might be and then trying to live with them. Alexandria O. Cortez, might be the like totally awesome, OMG rock star in politics ( at least with Hollywood and on the Far-Left ) of whatever they’re calling her, but being the coolest girl or person in the room doesn’t give you political power. You can win elections that way at least at the House level and below that. But as Beto O’Rourke and his presidential campaign is finding out, you need more than that to be successful in politics other than: “vote for me, because I look like a Hollywood actor and I I got a cool speaking voice, talk with my hands a lot, relate well with pop culture, connect with people in coffee houses and trendy bars, etc.”

As far as Representative Cortez’s politics, especially her socialist economics: for someone who says that American capitalism is bad, perhaps even racist, and everything else that she claims to not like about it, she lives very well with it. And it’s not just her, but you can make this criticism about anyone else in her generation who claims to not like American capitalism: I mean which government agency or state-run company produces all of her designer suits, or Starbucks coffee, her I-phone, the car she drives , etc. I mean hearing her or anyone else from her generation or anyone else who says there a Socialist too, is like listening to a so-called animal rights activist talking about the cruelty of eating meat, while they’re wearing a leather jacket: why would anyone who is of sound mind and intelligence take that person seriously. And the same thing with the so-called environmental activist who drives around in an SUV talking about the need to get off of oil and gas, because they’re bad for the environment.

I mean it’s easy to say you’re a Socialist in some Hollywood movie or perhaps in Hollywood in general, because probably no one is going to take you seriously anyway. Similar to Manhattan, Hollywood is the most capitalist and liberal democratic ( liberal democratic in the classic sense, at least ) places in America. Perhaps the last two places in America that would ever want America to become some type of a socialist state, simply because they would no longer want to work and live here and pay the taxes. But it’s another to now hold public office, because now you’ll be held accountable for everything that you say, propose, all your votes, committee appearances. And I believe at least that you have some responsibility to not only live up to your rhetoric, but to live by it as well. You really believe that American capitalism sucks so much, then try living without it.

Posted in Dan Mitchell, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: John Stossel & Elizabeth Nolan Brown: ‘Moral Panic Over Sex Work’

Posted on May 15, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
Stossel_ Moral Panic Over Sex Work

Source:Reason Magazine– Referring to New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft: who was arrested for prostitution

Source:The New Democrat 

“Police often accuse people of “sex trafficking.” Usually, it’s simply prostitution.

Police often use “sex trafficking” and “prostitution” interchangeably. That’s what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a “sex trafficking” sting.

Law enforcement “had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren’t allowed to leave,” Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That’s usually the case when it comes to “sex trafficking” busts, says Brown: “I’d say 99% of the headlines are not true.”

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: “These women are true victims.”

But the court documents “actually paint a very, very different story,” Brown points out. “No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case.”

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, “Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk”.

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. “Many people debunked the study and say, ‘This is just a total bullcrap number,'” Brown says.

She adds, “When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have.”

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.”

Source:Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: ‘Moral Panic Over Sex Work’

Just for the record: I’m not in favor of what’s called sex trafficking where you have at least very vulnerable, but perhaps very attractive women who are picked up ( if not kidnapped and enslaved ) with the promise that as long as they perform sex well, they’ll always be taken care of. That kind of thing is dangerous, as well as immoral, and should be illegal. But that’s not what this is about anyway and I only mention that because people who advocate for keeping prostitution illegal both on the Right and Left, say that we can’t have prostitution, because it leads to sex trafficking. Which is simply wrong, but that should be pointed out.

Anyone who argues that people should be in complete control over their own bodies, would be in favor of legalizing prostitution. If you believe in men should be in complete control over their own bodies as well, you should be in favor of legalizing prostitution, with the belief and knowledge that free, educated adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how their own bodies should be used and what should go into them.

It’s one thing to argue that women should be able to make their own medical decisions whether it comes to abortion or whatever the medical procedure might be and say that women can make these decisions for themselves and we should keep big government out of the hospitals and our bedrooms: but if you really believe big government should be out of the bedroom, then why would you be in favor of sting operations done by law enforcement and breaking into motel rooms to breakup people who are having consensual sex with each other, even if that sex was financially compensated.

I get the belief that prostitution is a dangerous business and it violates a lot of people’s moral and religious values: but should that alone to decide whether people should have to go to jail or not: wouldn’t a better approach and more cost-effective approach to law enforcement that instead of arresting people that for engaging in activities that can have negative consequences, that we instead arrest people for hurting innocent people and not what they do to themselves? Which of course would be a limited government approach, but also a liberal one, because it’s saying that we don’t want or need big government in our bedrooms, or in this case motel rooms.

Prostitution, is not just called the oldest profession in the world, but it actually is with perhaps politics being a close second, but the reason why it is the oldest profession in the world is because people love sex to the point that they won’t allow their loneliness stop them from having sex, or perhaps they don’t believe they’re getting enough from their girlfriend or wife, etc, whatever the reasons. And just because you outlaw something because you don’t like it and it can be dangerous, doesn’t mean it goes away: all you’ve done is make it illegal and are now responsible for enforcing your own laws and in this case that means arresting free adults simply for having consensual, but compensated sex.

And since we know that prostitution has been around as long as humans have been living and it’s never going away, wouldn’t a better approach be to legalize it and then regulate it and treat it like any other adult entertainment business: require anyone who runs or manages a prostitution business to get license. Require all prostitutes and their clients to get licensed and medically cleared on a regular basis. Tax the business, workers, and clients. Instead of locking people up simply for engaging in consensual, but compensated sex.

Posted in Reason, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Monthly: Paul Baumann: ‘When Religion is Too Free’

Posted on May 14, 2019 by Derik Schneider
Washington Monthly _ When Religion Is Too Free

Source:Washington Monthly– Freedom of Religion in America

Source:The New Democrat 

“But Waldman is too sanguine about the benefits “Americanizing” will have on the DNA of “ancient” religions. Some real tension should exist between an individualistic, often hedonistic society and traditional religious communities. Liberal democracy must cultivate in its citizens the virtues of loyalty, devotion, and sacrifice. Illiberal institutions such as organized religions, the family, and the military can do that in ways that economic and cosmopolitan liberalism cannot. The competitive marketplace, where ambition and immediate gratification are principally rewarded, is simply not up to the task of protecting the poor, the sick, the vulnerable, and the dying—or possibly even the nation. In this regard then, religious liberty is a necessary but not sufficient means for unifying a country as diverse, heedless, and contentious as ours. If both religion and democracy are to flourish, more than a cacophony of choices is needed; a common language that is not merely a celebration of our differences is required. Religion, like democracy, is threatened when the marketplace becomes the predominant measure of value. ”

Read the rest of Paul Baumann’s piece at source:Washington Monthly: Paul Baumann- ‘When Religion is Too Free’

Freedom of Religion_ Crash Course Government and Politics #24

Source:Crash Course: Craig Benzine- ‘Freedom of Religion’– Part of the First Amendment 

When I first saw the title of Paul Baumann’s piece in The Washington Monthly, I thought this was about making an argument for outlawing Freedom of Religion in America, or at least getting the state involved and regulating it, but it was really a critique about Steven Waldman’s book Sacred Liberty, which argues for Freedom of Religion in America. So I’m glad to see that there is still some support for pluralism and liberal democracy in general with the Far-Left in America ( New-Left, if you prefer ) and that there not all total collectivists and statists looking to outlaw individualism in this country.

As far as Freedom of Religion in religion in general in America: if you’re familiar with this blog you know that a lot about what we write about and advocate for is liberal democracy. The photo of John F. Kennedy and what it means to be a Liberal on the front page of the blog, is a pretty good clue there. So of course we believe in pluralism and liberal democracy in general. We’re not Communists who again are looking to eliminate all forms of individualism and make everyone dependent on the state.

But we’re not Theocrats either who want everyone to follow and believe in the same religion and therefor require everyone to live by some set of religious values either. We’re Liberals, because we believe in liberal democracy which includes and the broader belief in Freedom of Speech, which protects Atheists and even Communists, as well as Theocrats who do want a state religion in this country. And we also believe in the Separation of Church and State which not only protects Freedom of Religion in America, as well as state interference into all religions in this country. And protects everyone’s right not have to follow or live by a particular religion, Or have to follow and live by any religion at all.

In a country like America that’s so vast and so diverse and not just racially and ethnically, but culturally and religiously as well, you to have a liberal democratic federal republic in it for the country to have any shot at not just thriving, but surviving and staying together as part of one union. Which is why all racial, ethnic, and religious groups have to have the same guaranteed rights and responsibilities under law. Otherwise this country would break up with different factions believing that America is not for them and that it’s time to breakup.

Posted in Freedom of Choice, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: ‘What if Women Ruled The World?’

Posted on May 13, 2019 by Erik Schneider
The Economist - What if Women Ruled The World_ - Google Search

Source:The Economist– U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: Democratic Socialist, New York City

Source:The New Democrat 

“Only 6.3% of all international leaders are women. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Liberian president and Africa’s first elected female head of state, suggests ways to redress the balance.”

Source:The Economist

To sort of have fun with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s comment about the world would be a better place if women ruled the world: if you’re a regular of the so-called reality TV series Housewives, you might not think the world would be a safer place if women ruled the world. Most of the time they’re either arguing, swearing at each other, even physically fighting and throwing things at each other. Which might be the only reason why those shows are so popular with all the catfighting. A good so-called reality TV show makes the WWE look like a golf match: way too quiet and peaceful.

As far as women ruling the world and to take a more serious look at this: ( for a change ) the only way to achieve power in America or anywhere else in the world, is to achieve power. Which I know sort of sounds like Captain Obvious on his best day, but anything that’s worth doing is worth working for. You don’t achieve power in America or anywhere else by sitting at home or at some coffee house staring at your phone and hoping someone else does it for you. But instead you have to enter the free market of ideas ( also known as liberal democracy ) and put yourself out there and make to case to anyone who will hear you why you’re the most qualified candidate out there and should hold that office, instead of the man you are running against or perhaps another woman that you might be running against.

Some might argue ( like radical feminists ) that it’s hard for women to run office because of sexism and all the negative stereotypes women especially female candidates get about being tough and not seeming feminine enough and all of that: try making that case to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement of the 1960s: what if Dr. King believed that his civil rights movement wasn’t worth it because of all the violence and racism that he and his movement would face from those racist, Neo-Confederate state government’s in the South and decided: “the hell with it, this is not worth it.” You think America and the world would be different if women were in charge: imagine how different America would be if the African-American community was satisfied with living as second-class citizens and in some cases not even treated like citizens at all.

I realize the women’s movement ( whatever that is supposed to be today ) is not an exact parallel to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but there are similarities in as far as what both movements were up against from the outset. And in the civil rights case and to a large extent with a lot of female candidates and female politicians today, a lot of these people knew that from the outset as well and decided that it was worth it and that just because they’re female that doesn’t make them any less qualified to hold public office than their male counterparts. Which is how 70 or more women get elected to Congress last year with most of those women getting elected to the House. ( You want more female Senators, they have to run for office first )

And I just get back to my first serious point to close this: anything in life regardless of which country it is that’s worth achieving in life is worth working for. Even if there are a lot of obstacles that are thrown at you and even unfair obstacles: like people being judged simply by their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And a lot of times you need those thoroughbreds from the outset who don’t completely throw caution to the wind, but knows exactly what’s in front of them and takes it on anyway with a game plan to accomplish their goals. You don’t win games by sitting on the sidelines. And you don’t win elections and get elected by sitting at home.

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Big Think: Kurt Andersen: ‘Why America Confuses Fantasy For Reality- Celebrity, Hollywood & Disneyland’

Posted on May 12, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
Why America Confuses Fantasy for Reality_ Celebrity, Hollywood, & Disney

Source:Big Think– Newsflash for unfortunately a lot of Americans: Fantasy Last is not the real world.

Source:The New Democrat 

“The start of the 20th century was the birth of a strange new reality in the United States. The advent of the moving image, of Hollywood and sudden celebrity, caused a quantum shift in how Americans thought about the experience of life. Actors were elevated to the status of superheroes and demigods, and those left in the obscurity of the masses began to desire that elusive privilege: fame. But where America really went haywire, author Kurt Andersen explains, is when the cult of celebrity and the cult of capitalism merged: it was the opening of Disneyland in 1955. A bizarre reality where advertising met animation. You could buy real wares, from fake characters, in real stores, with make-believe themes. “What happened in Disneyland… did not stay there,” says Andersen. From Mickey Mouse all the way to the White House, Anderson doesn’t find it at all surprising that Americans might have a hard time telling what’s true from what’s false. He calls it the fantasy-industrial complex, and it might just be America’s beautifully branded nightmare. Kurt Andersen’s new book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History.”

Source:Big Think

Life is hard - quote - Google Search

Source:Brainy Quote– Actress Katherine Hepburn: with a great quote

I guess I have a different take on this even though I agree with most of what Kurt Andersen is saying here and my broader point is about what’s called reality TV ( even though there’s almost nothing that’s actually real about it ) and Hollywood in general. ( Speaking of reality TV )

Kate Hepburn and you can see her quote up here, has a great quote on life: “life is hard. After all, it kills you.” The name of the person who also has a great quote on life escapes me right now, but he said that life is basically hard and most of it is negative, etc, and that we should try to take advantage of it.

And I agree with most of that, but lets we had to live without any entertainment and no escapes from realty whatsoever: how much more difficult would life be then? The reason why America has the largest entertainment industry in the world, ( also known as Hollywood ) is the same reason why we have what’s called reality TV ( which is actually tabloid TV, which is very different ) life is hard and we all need those escapes from reality and to just be able to chill and not think about reality for a few hours during the day.

And for some people they need more than that and for others they can afford that:

Imagine a so-called reality TV show that was actually reality TV and actually showed what everyday life was like for these so-called celebrities: ( and in some cases wannabe celebrities )

What work was like for them, what their family life was like, what breakfast and dinner was like, we got to see them picking up their kids from school or dropping them off, that we got to see all of these things and not just two women swearing at loud at each other and calling eacb other horrible people and having public fights, that we got to see all the mundane in their life that almost every other American goes through in life: how fast would the ratings on the Housewives shows on Bravo plummet if they were actually reality TV and now just all the drama that they want to show us in order to drive ratings? And in many cases preplanned drama where the producers actually encourage these so-called real people to act out.

Life for a lot of people is tough and in many cases boring, at least compared with what life is supposed to be like for these so-called reality TV stars. And as a result you get a lot of people who want to be like their favorite so-called celebrities: who act out like them, talk like them, eat the same food, have the same pet nicknames for their friends, associates, family, etc, shop at the same stores, ( if they can afford it ) eat at the same restaurants, ( if they can afford it ) drink the same coffee, ( if they can afford it ) style their homes the exact same way as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) try to live the exact same lives as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) and not just follow them on their favorite social media sites.

And Hollywood movies and TV where there are actual professional actors involved like comedies and dramas, people consume these shows and movies for the exact same reasons as tabloid TV and sports for the same reasons, because they want even if it’s just a 2-4 escape for their actual reality, they feel they need that and in many cases might actually need all of this fantasy in their lives if life really sucks that much for them.

If the average American was a celebrity, then they wouldn’t need so-called reality TV in their lives and the rest of Hollywood: but if the average American was famous, then no one would be famous, because we would just be like some small town in the middle of nowhere that’s days trip away from the nearest big city, where everyone knows each other.

Posted in Big Think, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inside Edition: ‘Why Long Island Lolita Amy Fisher- Shot Her Lover’s Wife’

Posted on May 10, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
Why Long Island Lolita Shot Her Lover's Wife

Source:Inside Edition– Amy Fisher: about to be sentenced for shooting Mary Jo Buttafuoco in 1992.

Source:The New Democrat 

“On May 19, 1992, 17-year-old Amy Fisher went to her married lover’s home, rang the doorbell and shot his wife in the head. The story became a tabloid news sensation, with Fisher dubbed “Long Island Lolita.” Her victim, Mary Jo Buttafuoco, survived her injuries but will always have the bullet lodged in her skull. In December 1992, a judge sentenced Fisher to five to 15 years in prison. At the sentencing, Mary Jo detailed the pain Fisher had caused her family. Fisher was released in 1999.”

Source:Inside Edition

Happy Friday and because of that we’re going to take a different course today and take a short break from the current affairs and history that this blog normally covers and instead talk about more important and pressing issues like tabloid true crime stories. LOL Or at least more entertaining stories like the Long Island love affair between Joey Buttafuoco and Amy Fisher from back in the early 1990s.

To answer Inside Edition’s ( speaking of tabloids ) question about why Amy Fisher shot her ex-lover’s Joey Buttafuoco wife Mary Jo: she was sort of a crazy, highly impressionable, lost in space teenage girl who wasn’t even 18 yet when she shot Mrs. Buttafuoco, who believed that Joey even though he was married with kids and was happily married with kids and loved his kids, and was a successful small business owner in Long Island, New York, that he would give up all of that to be with her. Amy Fisher, who was still in high school when she met Joey and Joey was 36 at this point with everything else going for him in life that I already mentioned.

I’m not not a mindreader, ( obviously ) otherwise life would be way too interesting for me always knowing what others are thinking, but I was a teenager at one point even if my grasp of reality was a lot stronger than Amy Fisher’s, but I have to imagine that Amy with her teenage and obsessed mind probably assumed that if Joey wouldn’t leave his wife voluntarily, that maybe if she eliminated Mary Jo herself, then maybe Joey would take her back and they could be together again. And maybe she becomes the mother of his kids.

Amy sort of had this Marilyn Monroe delusion going on where she expected a man that she believed was in love with her would give up everything that he already has: beautiful wife, the kids, nice home, successful business, money, in order to be with her who wasn’t even out of high school yet. But that’s just my theory about this case.

Posted in The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Hoffman: ‘This Ordinary Man Didn’t Get The Sexual Revolution’

Posted on May 9, 2019 by kireschneider
This Ordinary Man Didn't Get The Sexual Revolution - Google Search

Source:David Hoffman– I’m sure this man has a name, but I don’t know who he is.

Source:The New Democrat 

“My subscribers have been asking me to, on occasion, post a complete interview without edits. This is one. The person asking the questions is my co-executive producer on my television series on the 1960s. The interview was conducted in 1989 as part of 180 interviews we did for that series. My idea was to talk with ordinary people from all political and social stripes about their experiences of that time.”

Source:David Hoffman

Not surprising that anyone who is older than the Silent Generation ( Americans born in the 1930s, generally ) and in some cases members of the Silent Generation didn’t get the 1960s Sexual Revolution.

Pre-1963 or so, America was a Phyllis Schlafly, Beaver Cleaver, Ozzie and Harriet Utopia: “hi honey, “I’m home” wasn’t just a popular 1950s sitcom phrase, but what most of America was about as far as relationships between American men and women: man worked and paid the bills: woman stayed home and raised their kids. Of course Americans were having sex pre-marriage back in the 1950s and even before that, but they didn’t talk about that. They didn’t live with each other pre-marriage. They didn’t have kids pre-marriage. Americans tended not to talk about their sex lives in public.

Starting in the 1960s, America started changing dramatically because you had all of these Baby Boomers ( Americans born in the 1940s and 50s ) entering, graduating high school, entering college, and graduating college. These Americans were tired and bored with their parents and grandparents America and wanted to live their own lives. Listen to their own music, watch their own movies and TV, party with their own people and go to their own parties. And perhaps the most divisive aspect of the 1960s having to do with military service where you had all of these Baby Boomers who didn’t feel the need to enter the military and didn’t believe America should be involved in other countries civil wars. Which is what the divide about the Vietnam War was.

So of course if you came of age in the 1950s and you’re weren’t a Beatnik, ( 1950s Hippies ) you grew up in an America that looked almost like a different country than what America looked like by 1965 or so. It looked like two different large, developed countries where one America looks more like Saudi Arabia and the other America looks like a free society where everyone is essentially free to be themselves and live their own lives, to do their own thing and not feel the need to be like people who are older than them, just because that’s how American life was before.

Posted in American History, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Audio Productions: Senator Joseph McCarthy- ‘Traitors Are Not Gentlemen’: March 17, 1954

Posted on May 9, 2019 by Rik Schneider
Traitors Are Not Gentlemen Senator Joseph McCarthy March 17th 1954 - Google Search

Source:Audio Productions– U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy: the father of the McCarthyist movement

Source:The New Democrat 

“Joseph Raymond “Joe” McCarthy (November 14, 1908 — May 2, 1957) was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion.[1] He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, his tactics and inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate.

The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy’s practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.[2]

Born and raised on a Wisconsin farm, McCarthy earned a law degree at Marquette University in 1935 and was elected as a circuit judge in 1939, the youngest in state history.[3] At age 33, McCarthy volunteered for the United States Marine Corps and served during World War II. He successfully ran for the United States Senate in 1946, defeating Robert M. La Follette, Jr. After three largely undistinguished years in the Senate, McCarthy rose suddenly to national fame in February 1950 when he asserted in a speech that he had a list of “members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring” who were employed in the State Department.[4] McCarthy was never able to prove his sensational charge.

In succeeding years after his 1950 speech, McCarthy made additional accusations of Communist infiltration into the State Department, the administration of President Harry S. Truman, the Voice of America, and the United States Army. He also used various charges of communism, communist sympathies, disloyalty, or homosexuality to attack a number of politicians and other individuals inside and outside of government.[5]

Not as widely known as McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade were his various attempts to intimidate, and expel from government positions, persons whom he accused, or threatened to publicly accuse, of homosexuality. Former U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson has written: “The so-called ‘Red Scare’ has been the main focus of most historians of that period of time. A lesser-known element…and one that harmed far more people was the witch-hunt McCarthy and others conducted against homosexuals.”

Source:Audio Productions

The piece from Audio Productions put out perfectly lays out what Senator Joe McCarthy stood for in the 1940s and how went from a lowly junior U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, to becoming one of the most powerful members of Congress: not just Senator’s, but to becoming one of the most powerful people in Congress from either chamber in about 4 years.

By 1951, Senator McCarthy becomes Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee which is where he starts his so-called investigation of Communists in the U.S. Government, to two years later after Republicans win back Congress with Dwight Eisenhower becoming President where McCarthy becomes Chairman of that committee with subpoena power. Which was actually the start of his downfall because of how he used that power as Chairman and where guilt be association becomes better known as McCarthyism that of course was named as Senator Jospeh McCarthy.

As far as Senator McCarthy’s Traitors Are Not Gentlemen speech: you have to understand what the term traitor is: a traitor is someone who “betrays a friend, country, or organization.” Its a word that is wildly used today especially by hyper-partisans on the Far-Right in America and how they talk about people who simply disagree with them and don’t share their politics, cultural or religious values, even if the person or people that they’re labeling and even libeling have no foreign allegiances and love America for what America is which is the guaranteed right for Americans to be Americans not feel the need to have to fit into some religious or cultural box in order to be great Americans.

McCarthyism, wasn’t the start of tribalism and what we call nationalism today, but it was a huge moment in time for those movements and Joe McCarthy is someone that Nationalists and the broader Far-Right in America look up today and view as one of their heroes and argue that McCarthy was right in what he did, because in their view Communists and Socialists in general aren’t deserving of the same constitutional rights as people they would call the real Americans. Which are people that look at the world and America the way they do with this hardcore fundamentalist religious and cultural philosophy about what America is and what they believe it should be.

What McCarthyites and people who would be called Nationalists today fail to understand or aren’t willing to admit is what makes America great is the guaranteed right for Americans to be Americans and that we don’t all have to be the same: we don’t have to look the same, act the same, talk the same way, believe in the same religion, or even have to be religious at all, and we don’t have to think the same way to be great Americans. We just have to acknowledge the respect the rights and freedoms of other Americans as much as our own.

Posted in McCarthyism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Late Night With Seth Meyers: The Check In- Draining The Swamp

Posted on May 8, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
The Check In_ Draining The Swamp - Google Search

Source:Late Night With Seth Meyers– The Donald and Seth

Source:The New Democrat 

“Seth takes a break from breaking news to check in on how President Trump’s campaign promise to drain the Washington, D.C., swamp of insiders, lobbyists and special interest groups is going.”

Source:Late Night With Seth Meyers

At risk of sounding cliche to every single one of those 65 plus million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016: how’s that draining the swamp working out for you? The most successful real estate project that Donald Trump has ever been personally involved in or created by himself, is the 2017 expansion of the Washington Swamp. If anyone is wondering the the weather has been even hotter and more humid in Washington the last two years, it’s because of one of their newest residents who just happens to live at The White House. He doesn’t own The White House and doesn’t even pay rent there, but he couldn’t afford the rent anyway so it’s sort of a moot point and question. He owes too much money probably to both Russia and Saudi Arabia and perhaps Germany as well thanks to Deutsche Bank. Who doesn’t just lend money to Americans even if they’re of German descent like Donald Trump.

We now have a President who not only believes the U.S. Justice Department is his personal law firm ( add to that his list of personal services that he doesn’t pay for ) and the Attorney General is his personal lawyer ( add that to the list of personal lawyers that Donald Trump doesn’t compensate ) but he uses those two offices and departments as his personal lawyers. And now ( thanks to The New York Times ) we know that the man who claims to be the greatest Americans businessman in American history, couldn’t afford to even pay Federal income taxes in at least parts of the 1980s and 1990s, because he didn’t earn enough income to qualify for Federal the income taxes and that he was also the biggest loser ( to use one of his own phrases ) during that period with all the money that he lost and had to write off to be able to financially survive during that period.

Donald Trump ran for President in 2016 claiming to be this great businessman who knows how get results and will make Washington work for the people and all of that: and his supporters will say that has worked and just look at the economy, the problems with that is he inherited a strong economy with strong economic and job growth, where even wages were finally growing again. And even with this strong economy somehow Donald Trump has managed to run up the deficit by 300 hundred-billion dollars ( which is even more money than her personally lost in the 1980s and 90s ) and the only person that Donald Trump has ever made money for ( when he’s not losing money ) his himself and all the great and professional news organizations that cover him and report the truth about the Real Donald Trump ( ha, ha ) that he calls the enemy of the people.

Posted in The Donald, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

People’s World: Series- ‘100 Years of Communist Party USA’

Posted on May 7, 2019 by Derik Schneider
Communist Party USA also changing from hammers to gears #CivilizationBeyondEarth #gaming #Civilization #games #world #steam #SidMeier #RTS

Source:Communist Party USA– Communist Party of America.

Source:The New Democrat

“the world is on the verge of a new era. Europe is in revolt. The masses of Asia are stirring uneasily. Capitalism is in collapse. The workers of the world are seeing a new life and securing new courage. Out of the night of war is coming a new day… The class war rages fiercely in all nations. Everywhere the workers are in a desperate struggle against their capitalist masters. The call to action has come. The workers must answer the call!” — Manifesto of the Communist Party of America, 1919”

Source:People’s World

“Despite the challenges of working for socialism, peace and social justice in the world’s leading imperialist power, the Communist Party USA has played a dynamic role for 100 years in the growth and struggles of our country’s labor movement.”

The CPUSA and the Labor Movement _ 100 Years

Source:

I sort of got into this last year on this blog about what exactly is communism as a political philosophy and what does it mean to be a Communist. And one of the biggest reactions and answers to that were that Communists are essentially Anarchists who believe in a stateless society: which anyone who is familiar with communism and how its portrayed at least ( if not accurately ) sounds like the opposite of what communism is supposed to be and what it means to be a Communists.

When people think of big, centralized government and that individualism and materialism two things that Americans tend to love, that those things are somehow dangerous, ( at least according to Communists and Socialists ) they think of Communists and Socialists as people who believe in that. And that you need a central government big enough with the resources to guarantee that everyone is taken care of and that people don’t have the freedom to make big mistakes with their lives.

When you hear Communists talk today whether they’re in America or outside of this country, they tend to talk about and push the same things as let’s say the Democratic Socialists of America.

Whether you’re talking about a big, centralized welfare state, or that individual wealth is somehow selfish and unfair and you need big, centralize government welfare state to sort of equalize things ( to use a soccer term ) and make sure there’s enough resources for people who aren’t wealthy. Rarely if ever today ( anywhere outside of North Korea, at least ) do you hear Socialists talking about the need of nationalizing this industry or that one. Except as it relates to private sector services that tend to be covered by a welfare state: like health care, health insurance, pension, education, etc. But not food, restaurants, technology, even airlines, etc.

If Communists actually do believed in a stateless society, ( which I gotta admit is a struggle to try to believe ) then how are they different from Anarchists? If Communists, essentially believe in the same things as Democratic Socialists of America and let’s say U.K. Labour Leader Jermey Corbyn, how are they different from Democratic Socialists?

If Communists, are just what they believe they are and are people who believe that individual freedom both personal and economic are bad things and there shouldn’t be any right to privacy at least, because there’s no such thing as private or privacy in a true Communist State ( like North Korea ) and what you need instead if a big central government there with the resources to make sure that everyone is taken care of in society and that individualism is not even wanted, let alone needed because the Communist State is always there to tell people what to do and what to think, ( like in North Korea ) then its easy to see why they you would need to socialist factions: a Communist-Authoritarian faction and a Democratic Socialist faction.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment