The Thinking Atheist: Andrew Torrez- ‘Donald Trump, The Courts, and The Evangelical Right’

Posted on May 6, 2019 by Erik Schneider
Image result for Andrew Torrez_ Trump, The Courts, and The Evangelical Right

Source:The Thinking Atheist– Andrew Torrez: on The Thinking Atheist

Source:The New Democrat 

“Andrew Torrez is an attorney and co-host of the Opening Arguments podcast. In this short profile, Andrew talks Trump, the law, impeachment(?), and the Supreme Court.”

From The Thinking Atheist

Image result for Ten Commandments - Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of The Dead

Source:United Church of God– “”Ten Commandments List: Where in the Bible does it talk about the Ten …”

I guess that I have a different take from Andrew Torrez on this, even though I agree with most of what he’s saying here. My point here is about Donald Trump and what’s called the Christian-Right and when we talk about these two movements ( which is exactly what they are ) we need to be careful when doing this and not put every Christian-Conservative in the same camp or say that everyone on the Christian-Right is a Christian-Conservative. And instead separate the people who truly are Christian-Fundamentalists and live by those values and if anything think Donald Trump and a lot of what he stands for in many ways is anti-Christian and an insult to Christianity, separate those people from the Christian-Nationalists and the hyper-partisan people on the Christian-Right in America.

I think it’s also dangerous to try to get into someone’s mind and try to label say this is exactly what they think and believe in. We shouldn’t do that when it comes to politics or religion, but what we can do is go by people’s actions and talk about how they act and their politics and believes based on what they say and what they do. And then see if their actions match up with what they claim to believe in. So I’m not going to try to argue that Donald Trump is not a Christian. He might truly believe he is ( even if his personal lifestyle and character makes it clear that he isn’t ) but what I am going to do is make the case that Trump doesn’t act like a Christian and a lot of what he believes in and how he presents himself, his lack of morality and character is very anti-Christian and I’m going to use The Ten Commandments and his personal behavior as my reference for that.

Let’s start with the third commandment thou shalt not take God’s name in vain: do you know of another President or American politician at any level that swears more in public more than Donald Trump? Within his first days as President he gives a speech at a church in Washington and of course he was joking here, but he was talking about Senate Chaplin and he said that he knows he can’t appoint the Chaplin for life and then he says: “the hell with it, I’m appointing the Chaplin for life.” And it got a big laugh, but the President of the United States literally not just swearing in public, but doing it at a church. And I realize the hell with anything is very mild when it comes to swearing in America today, but we’re talking about a President who can’t even keep his dirty mouth shut at a church.

How about though shalt not speak ill of the dead: I realize this might not be an official member of The Ten Commandments, but what’s Christian and moral about speaking ill of people who can’t defend themself and in Senator John McCain’s case who was a POW and war hero in Vietnam, because he wouldn’t rat on his fellow Naval officers: where’e the morality and Christianity about speaking ill of man like Senator John McCain who is dead?

Though shalt not commit adultery: Donald Trump, has been married three times and is a three-time adulterer. His personal life is exactly that and I’m not ready to says he’s a bad man because he’s a three-time adulterer, ( God knows there’s so much more and better evidence to lay out that he’s bad man without his adultery ) but it’s not just that he’s a serial adulterer, but take up to the points where he’s cheating on his wife while she’s carrying his third son with two porn actresses. And then pays off both women so his family never knows about that and it doesn’t hurt him during the 2016 presidential election.

Here’s a good one: though shalt not bear false witness: again, do you know of an American politician at nay level that lies more than Donald Trump? I wrote a piece a few weeks ago talking about liars and bullshitters ( and no, I’m not Christian myself ) and differentiating between the two: Donald Trump, qualifies both as a liar and a bullshitter. Which is a remarkable accomplishment in itself and its not that he just lies or lies so much is really bad by itself, because you’re talking about a President where maybe 3-5 Americans simply don’t believe the man every time he speaks. Whoever said that credibility and character is everything, knows what they’re talking about.

But it’s not just the lying and bullshit that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth or that he’s President when he does that. The real problem here is that he simply doesn’t give a damn ( to put it mildly ) and doesn’t seem to care if others knows when he’s lying and bullshitting and does it anyway. And that he’s so bad as a liar that a 10 year old kid could think to themself and say: “wait, that’s not true and does he even believe what he’s saying here.” I mean the man even lies about his own height: his official New York drivers license has him at 6’2 while he tells everyone else that he’s 6’3 and everyone already knows that he’s a big tall man and yet he has to give himself and extra inch. He even lies about his own father and ancestry saying that his father Fred Trump was from Germany, when the fact was his father was born in America to German-American parents who were from Germany.

Why the so-called Christian-Right thinks it’s Christian to loyally back a man who isn’t even aware of The Ten Commandments, let alone follows them or believes in them you’ll have to bring that up with them if you want to know the answer to that. And while you’re at it you might want to ask them if it is worth sacrificing their own character, morality, and credibility to get fewer abortions performed in America. But again its important not to put every member of the Christian-Right in the same box and instead separate the political partisans from the true Christians who actually live up to the values that they say they believe in.

Posted in The Thinking Atheist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wiley Studios: ‘Wisdom of Vince Lombardi- Famous Quotes’

Posted on May 5, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
Image result for The Wisdom of Vince Lombardi - Famous Quotes-2

Source:Wiley Studios– Vince Lombardi’s commonsense

Source:The New Democrat 

“Vince Lombardi quotes and sayings.

Vince Lombardi, at the age of 45, when most pro football luminaries have made their mark and passed from the scene of a young man’s game, was embarking on the dual adventure of being head coach and general manager of the Green Bay Packers.

His previous NFL experience consisted of five years as an assistant coach with the New York Giants. Amazingly, Vince basked in the limelight for only one decade. Cancer struck him down just as he seemingly was about to create a “second miracle,” the rejuvenation of the Washington Redskins. In remarkably few years, Lombardi became the symbol of excellence for an entire sport. Vince Lombardi quotes and speeches are considered the holy grail of motivation and life purpose.

Vincent Thomas “Vince” Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive in the National Football League (NFL). He is best known as the head coach of the Green Bay Packers during the 1960s, where he led the team to three straight and five total NFL Championships in seven years, in addition to winning the first two Super Bowls following the 1966 and 1967 NFL seasons. The NFL’s Super Bowl trophy is named in his honor. He was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1971, the year after his death. Lombardi, while considered by many to be the greatest coach in football history, is more significantly recognized as one of the greatest coaches and leaders in the history of any sport.

Lombardi began his coaching career as an assistant and later as a head coach at St. Cecilia High School in Englewood, New Jersey. He was an assistant coach at Fordham, at the United States Military Academy, and with the New York Giants before becoming a head coach for the Green Bay Packers from 1959 to 1967 and the Washington Redskins in 1969. He never had a losing season as a head coach in the NFL, compiling a regular season winning percentage of 72.8% (96–34–6), and 90% (9–1) in the postseason for an overall record of 105 wins, 35 losses, and 6 ties in the NFL.

Here are some of his famous and not so famous quotes and wisdom.”

Image result for The Wisdom of Vince Lombardi - Famous Quotes

Source:AZ Quotes– “What you got to have is faith and discipline when you’re not a winner. Vince Lombardi · Inspirational …”

Source:Wiley Studios

When I think of Vince Lombardi and his quotes, I think of a couple of things: commonsense where a lot of what he says really is just basic commonsense, but he believed in what he said and acted on it. The reasons why I believe commonsense is called commonsense because you don’t have to be a genius to understand it or to come up with it, but you have to believe in it and the use it.

And the reasons why commonsense is repeated over and over, because we have so many people who don’t believe in it, or don’t actually understand it. It’s seemed as old school and just doesn’t fit in today’s American culture, because it comes off a corny. There’s no Hollywood pop culture flare to it and doesn’t sound like something that today’s so-called celebrities wouldn’t believe in and certainly wouldn’t quote themselves, because it sounds so corny and common.

And once something is put down as corny or old school in today’s culture, its forgotten and pushed aside with people believing that it can’t be true, because that’s what people back in the day believed and that’s how they talked and doesn’t represent the modern culture.

The other thing that I think of when I think of Vince Lombardi is not really a thing, but a real man and human being in Richard Nixon: whatever you think of Richard Nixon and I have my own mixed feelings about him myself a lot of his own quotes and advice that he gave people in his speeches sound like things that Vince Lombardi could’ve written himself and as if Coach Lombardi was President Nixon’s speechwriter or something. Not accusing Richard Nixon of plagiarizing, but he an Vince Lombardi did have similar speaking voices.

The whole Lombardi quote about its not a question of whether someone gets knocked down in life, but the question is whether you get back up or not: that sounds a lot like President Nixon’s deepest valley quote when on the day he left the presidency in 1974: “that you’ll never know what its like to be on the highest mountain, until you’re in the deepest valley.” That to reach the top, you have to pay the price for it even if that means getting knocked down in life.

The difference between Vince Lombardi and Dick Nixon when it came to commonsense is that Lombardi lived it and believed it. Nixon, learned the hard way to the point that it cost him his presidency about why you shouldn’t be petty and hate others and how those flaws destroyed his presidency.

I’m going to give you my favorite quotes from Vince Lombardi and tell you what I thunk of them and you can do the same as well.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all time thing.”

What I take for that is that you can’t take winning for granted and then expect to be successful. That just doesn’t go for football, but in life in general. Once you become complacent and overconfident is when you’re at you most vulnerable, because that’s when you slack off. But the better you prepare, the better you execute, and the harder and better you work, the better you’ll do not just in football, but in life in general.

“Its not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get back up.”

I could go back to Richard Nixon’s deepest valley quote on that: since all of us are human, none of us are perfect and because of that we all make mistakes, or just get beat by better opponents and have to deal with the consequences of those losses. Or lose people in our lives that are very close to us, or just get screwed over by people who want things for themselves and don’t care if they have to hurt people in order to accomplish those goals. The question is do we learn from our mistakes and losses and use them to make us better people and not repeat those mistakes again and not lose the same way again. Or do we stay down and claim that life is unfair.

“Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can achieve excellence.”

This quote right here sounds more like Bill Walsh or Mike Holmgren ( two other NFL Hall of Fame head coaches ) than Richard Nixon: what Holmgren said about this, is that we should always strive for perfection knowing from the outset that we’ll never accomplish that: which sort of sounds like a fools errand like a cat trying to catch his tail, or a man jumping from a bridge thinking he can fly by just flapping his arms. But what Coach Holmgren meant by that is what I believe Coach Lombardi meant by that as well: that we strive for perfection to make ourselves as good as we possibly can be. That you try to win every single football game that you play, not because you’re going after a perfect season, ( necessarily ) but to win as many games as possible and to be as good as you can be. Which again is another good Lombardi life lesson as well.

In some ways I believe that Vince Lombardi could never be successful in the modern NFL, because the modern NFL is now more of an entertainment business than anything else and perhaps more like a Hollywood studio than major pro sports league, with a of players seeing themselves more as entertainers than pro athletes who more worried about their so-called brands and how they play in American culture in general and even view the NFL as one of their side business that they use to gain fame and use that to get other business opportunities for themselves. But then I look at Bill Belichick or even Bill Cowher from just 10-15 years ago and think maybe a Lombardi could succeed today, because those great coaches believe in the same things and get their players to believe in them as well.

Posted in NFL Greatest, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Hoffman: ‘The 60s Hurt America- Says This Brilliant Conservative’

Posted on May 3, 2019 by kireschneider
Image result for The 60s Hurt America Says This Brilliant Conservative

Source:David Hoffman– Unknown man, but looks like Robert Kuttner from The American Prospect: who would never be confused with any actual Conservative.

Source:The New Democrat 

“This is another clip from interviews that I conducted for my PBS television series, Making Sense Of The Sixties. It was recorded in 1989. The speaker was a professor and writer.”

Source:David Hoffman

I think we need to careful about throwing out political labels when we get into the discussions in these debates and perhaps first figure out what we’re talking about here and then see if the label conservative or liberal fits here. Instead of labeling everyone on the Right as a Conservative. And everyone on the Left as a Liberal.

Because as the guy in the video said: “liberal today, doesn’t mean what it use to mean and even what it meant in the 1960s.” And the same thing with conservative, as the guy said: “a Conservative use to be about protecting the free market and being a cold warrior against communism.” And I would add to that not someone who believes that everyone should be the same and live the same lifestyle and even use big government to force a certain way of life onto everyone. That America is a republic and free society, not some theocracy or monarchy where everyone is supposed to be the same.

As far as the 1960s: like every day decade the 60s had its ups and downs. What I liked about it was the individualism and America finally saying goodbye to Ozzie and Harriet and Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America ( thanks to the Baby Boom Generation ) and Americans were finally free to be Americans. Whether you’re on the Far-Right or Far-Left in America, or somewhere in between just about every American wants the freedom to be themselves and to make their own decisions in life. Instead of Big Government or some national cultural authority telling us what it means to be a real American and Patriot and what it means to be moral. That instead our morality should be judged by how we treat each other. Not about how we live our own personal lives and personal decisions that we make.

Being an American to me as a Liberal, is about being an individual and respecting not just my own freedom, but the freedom of every other American just as long as we’re not hurting innocent people. Instead of judging people’s morality and patriotism based on how often they go to church. Or whether they had sex before they got married. Did they live with their partner before they got married and did they even have kids before they got married. Do they gamble, drink alcohol, smoke, that sort of thing. And instead we should judge people’s morality and patriotism by how we treat each other. Not just the people we say we like and love, but how we treat people in general and we do respect their rights and freedom as mush as our own, or not.

And for me at least the positive aspect of the 1960s along with the civil rights movement, women’s rights, and gay rights the new individualism that came about for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or religion was what was great about that decade. Along with music and movies that came out during that decade. What wasn’t good about that decade and the negative aspects of the 1960s was all the violence including the War in Vietnam, but all the violence and what at times at least looked like anarchy in this country with big, great cities like Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles all blowing up because of rioting.

Some have argued that there were justifiable reasons for all the violence in that decade because of high poverty, crime, and racism: but people who argue that should understand that all of that anarchy from that decade is how Richard Nixon becomes President in 1969 and how we get Watergate just a few years after that. And my question for them would be was all the violence from the 60s worth having President Richard Nixon, and escalation of the Vietnam War, and Watergate?

So what was great about the 60s was all the freedom and individualism of that decade where social movements that looked radical just 5-10 years earlier and even Un-American with people on the right-wing believing that these movements were started by Communists and other radicals, now becoming mainstream in America just 5-10 years later: the civil rights movement, antiwar movement, the music and movies, the hippie movement from that decade. With all the violence from that decade being the broccoli for dessert and giving the country a real sour taste in their mouths.

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

Arthur Brooks: ‘Love Your Enemies: Be An Authoritative Leader’

Posted on May 2, 2019 by Rik Schneider
Image result for Love Your Enemies | Be an Authoritative Leader

Source:American Enterprise Institute– Arthur Brooks: the idealist hippie?

Source:The New Democrat 

“If you’ve turned on the TV or scrolled through social media lately, you know that being nice isn’t in fashion. But is it also a losing strategy? In the last of three video lessons on how to subvert the culture of contempt, Arthur Brooks reveals the surprising effect of kindness on leadership and job performance and shares how we can elevate better leaders in our society.”

Source:American Enterprise Institute

At risk of sounding insulting here and I respect and even like what Arthur Brooks trying to accomplish here and the message: but we wouldn’t have nasty, partisan, hate TV on cable or on social media if it didn’t sell. It’s the hold Henry McCarthy quote ( also known as Billy The Kid ) when he was asked why he robs banks and he answered because that is where the money is: why do people go to the kitchen or restaurants when they’re hungry: because that’s where the food is. Why do we have nasty, partisan, hate TV and hate on social media and not hate necessarily in the sense in a bigoted or racist sense, but hate in the sense where you have two competing ideological factions who literally hate each other simply because they disagree with each other and look at the country differently, because it sells!

You can talk about the need for less partisanship in Congress and in government generally, or on TV and that cable news shouldn’t have a panel of so-called experts there who are simply there to talk about why the other side sucks so much and instead have bipartisan panels of experts who are there to present different viewpoints who disagree with each other, but aren’t there to destroy the other side and even listen to what the other side says and the intelligently responds to their points.

But at the end of the day FNC and MSNBC, and to a certain extent CNN which is less partisan than the other two, but they have their own share of partisan panels and shows of people who represent one side of the isle and aren’t bipartisan, but in the end these cable networks are all for-profit companies that have to make profits in order to stay in business.

And as long as partisan news is profitable and straight, hard news isn’t where the so-called experts there aren’t partisans, but are simply there to give intelligent analysis about what they know, as long as straight up hard news isn’t profitable, cable news will just get more partisan. And as a result we’ll have a less informed public, because we’ll still have this large population in the country that are getting news based on their partisan viewpoints and not where’s the best sources of news and information.

Cable news and news in general is never any better than the people that consumes its information. We have a partisan news age now simply because we have a very partisan population. And again all of these news outlets have to make money to stay in business and have present the news in the most profitable way possible even if that means being less truthful and even honest than they have in the past. Which is bad for their industry and bad for the people they represent, because it leaves their viewers less informed.

But if there is any bright side here and I’m coming from the viewpoint as someone who just wants actual news and intelligent, nonpartisan commentary: there will always be a market for people who simply want straight, hard news and could care less about what the partisans think of the actual real news. Which is why I believe network news, big city and big market newspapers, and big national newspapers will always be in business, because there will always be that group of Americans who are simply interested in what the hell is going on in the country and world, regardless of which party it may hurt or help. Even if the market for partisan news is always greater.

Posted in AEI Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Justin Stapley: ‘The Cultural War & Federalism’

Posted on May 1, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
Image result for Culture War and Federalism

Source:Medium– “Why America should return to federalism”

“Federalism is one of the few political mechanisms that benefits everyone. All sides of the political divide should be wary of allowing it to become a casualty in the ever-escalating culture war.

The system of federalism created by the Constitution of the United States formed a union of sovereign states. While modern Americans do not generally think of themselves in terms of state identity and citizenship as much as their ancestors did, our laws still maintain a Republic of individual states. Because of this, each state has been allowed to craft much of their own laws, establish and maintain their own customs, and enrich and grow their own unique cultures. There is likely nowhere else in the world where such different political realities and cultural norms could be experienced while remaining within the same country.

Contrary to what many of the more abrasive elements of the left and right might declare, the almost radically different state-to-state realities is a good thing. Political, cultural, and religious pluralism is what creates the free market of ideas. We are fortunate to live under a government system that not only encourages as much local autonomy and freedom as possible but stubbornly protects it. Despite these apparent strengths of diversity under a federalist system, fewer and fewer American citizens seem to see things this way.”

Read the rest at :The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley- “The Cultural War and Federalism’

From Wikipedia

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

As a Liberal and as a pragmatist, I’m going to give you both my argument for federalism and why I’m a Federalist and my philosophical view of why I believe in federalism as opposed to some type of Unitarian state where governmental power is centralized with the national government. And then let you weigh in on what you think of both of my perspectives here.

In a time where you have a country that’s so divided not just politically, ideologically, culturally, and now unfortunately as if those factors aren’t bad enough we now have a country that is divided religiously, ethnically, and even racially now is the best time to be a Federalist and support the Federal Republic in America, if for no other reason you don’t want the country to ever officially divide up again and fight another civil war between Confederates and Unionists. So that’s the first part of my practical argument for being a Federalist.

The second part of my practical argument for being a Federalist and for federalism goes back to my first part: since we’re so divided as a country for all the reasons that I just explained and can’t even agree anymore on what’s new and what’s opinion, since we all get our news and commentary from different media sources depending on what political faction we’re part of, we don’t whether we’re on the Right, Left, or somewhere in between want a national, centralized government telling us how we should live and govern ourselves. How we should protect our streets, educated our kids, mange our welfare systems, decide for us what personal activities should be illegal or legal, etc. And instead let the states make the decisions for themselves based on their own cultural and political values, as well as the U.S. Constitution.

The first part of my philosophical argument for being a Federalist, goes to me being a Liberal and believing in liberal democracy: as a Liberal you’re supposed to not be against power and always oppose it, but you always question it and always hold it accountable. The old cliche power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: and the more you centralize especially governmental power and the people who control our law enforcement, military, and corrections system, the harder it is to hold that power accountable and to question it.

The second part of my philosophical argument of why I’m a Federalist, is also somewhat practical, because in a gigantic country like America that’s located in between two of the largest oceans in the world and goes three-thousand miles long and roughly two-thousand miles wide, ( and that’s just the Continental United States ) that also has 320 million people in it, you don’t want a central governmental authority in Washington or anywhere else in the country telling Milwaukee, Dallas, Seattle, or Los Angeles, or any other city far and way from Washington telling them how they should protect their streets, educate their kids, manage their welfare systems, etc, since the national government could never know the conditions on the ground as well as the people in those communities themselves. Since the people on the ground know their own communities the best.

Not saying that I don’t believe in having a national government: a big part of the Federal Republic is a Federal Government, but it should be limited to doing only the things that you need a Federal Government for: like national defense, interstate law enforcement, regulation of interstate commerce, enforcing the constitutional rights for all Americans equally, financial assistance for low-income communities. And leave the state issues to the states, just as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution and no one’s constitutional rights are being violated.

“A political primer that was originally created 10 years ago and put away because it seemed the Red State – Blue State divide might be a fading cliche. But here we are….”

Posted in Originals, Role of Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CATO Institute: Doug Bandow: ‘Is Liberalism Good For Religions?’

Posted on May 1, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
Image result for CATO - Is Liberalism Good For Christianity?

Source:CATO Institute– In its classical and real sense, liberalism is great for religions

Source:The New Democrat 

“Featuring Joseph Loconte, Associate Professor of History, The King’s College; Daniel Philpott, Professor of Religion and Global Politics, University of Notre Dame; Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.

Liberalism, a political philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and champions reason, freedom, and equality, has lately been criticized by some religious thinkers in the West. Liberalism, in their view, only “atomizes” individuals, weakens society, and ultimately corrodes all faiths.

Yet other religious intellectuals think that there are many reasons to appreciate liberalism, including the very freedom that the believers have found in liberal societies to practice and manifest their faith and to be free from the persecutions that have defined much of human history. Moreover, they think that under liberalism, religions flourish in healthier ways — through persuasion rather than coercion, and through civil society rather than state power.

This discussion is particularly relevant for Islam, since Muslim opinion leaders are often ambivalent, at best, on whether they should accept liberal standards of human rights or rather reject them as alien and detrimental. If liberalism is rejected even by Western Christians, whose religious traditions have been much more at peace with liberalism, Eastern Muslims will not even consider it.”

Source:CATO Institute: Doug Bandow- ‘Is Liberalism Great For Religions?’

From Wikipedia

“Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.”

This is another post from this blog about what liberalism actually is and what it isn’t and religion, individual choice, and free speech are great topics to look at when you’re talking about liberalism, because they all get to free choice and thought, which is what liberalism and liberal democracy is all about.

If you look at liberalism from a stereotypical big government and even communist sense that liberalism is essentially based on big government and the test being that the more liberal someone is, the more government they believe in and the less individual choice that you believe in, under this test liberalism would be horrible for religions and believers, because Communists would be the most liberal people around.

And under this bogus test ( let’s call it ) progressivism and Progressives would be horrible for religions and believers, because under this test Communists would be the most liberal and progressive people around. Even though communism, is the most illiberal and regressive political ideology anywhere in the world. ( At least on the left ) But that’s not the actual test about what it means to be a Liberal and whether someone believes in liberalism or not.

The test for what it means to be a Liberal ( meaning someone who believes in and practices the philosophy of liberalism ) is whether someone believes in liberty and equal rights. ( As the Wikipedia link says ) People who believe in limited government, individual rights, including civil rights and human rights.

Those include things like property rights, the right to privacy which includes freedom of choice, like whether someone should be able to or not practice any religion of their choice, or no religion at all, or in my case I’m Agnostic. That Liberals believe in not only freedom of or from any religion and they also believe in Separation of Church and State. That religion should not be illegal in a free society, but that there shouldn’t be any official religion and any state sponsor of religion in a free society.

And under this test the liberal test or the Wikipedia test, ( if you prefer ) liberalism is great for all religions and even Agnostics and Atheists, Communists even and people who believe that liberalism should actually be outlawed in society, because individuals have a constitutional right of whether or not to practice any religion at all or no religion at all, because they have that constitutional right in a liberal democratic free society.

Again, if you look at liberalism is actually about and that being based off of liberal democracy and not some stereotypical, big government sense where Liberals are supposed to essentially be Socialists and even Communists who view individual choice and freedom in general as dangerous and bad for society. And you need a government big enough to make sure that individual choice is limited as mush as possible.

Posted in CATO Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Newsweek: ‘Joe Biden’s Biggest Gaffes’

Posted on April 30, 2019 by Derik Schneider
Image result for Joe Biden's Biggest Gaffes

Source:Newsweek– “Joe Biden’s Biggest Gaffes: Quotes, Blunders That Could Hurt a 2020 Presidential Campaign”

Source:The New Democrat 

“In the wake of Joe Biden’s official presidential run announcement, here are eight of Biden’s biggest public gaffes.”

From Newsweek

Laying out Joe Biden’s biggest gaffes, is like trying to layout Michael Jordan’s greatest dunks, or Joe Montana’s greatest games, Larry Bird’s best shots, Magic Johnson’s best passes, Martin L. King’s greatest speeches, and unfortunately I could go on and hopefully you have a good idea by now. ( If not, seek help )

What people love about Joe Biden, is also what gets him in trouble: what Americans say they want from politicians, is what gets Joe Biden in trouble. He has a tendency to speak from the heart and tell people what he thinks and what he knows and if that was actually what Americans wanted from their politicians, instead of an entire team of ass-kissers and panderers which is what they consistently vote for in both parties, Joe Biden would’ve already been President by now and Jimmy Carter would’ve been reelected in 1980. Two men who told the truth or at least were honest time and time again and at least in President Carter’s case wasn’t very successful as a politician.

To talk about one of Joe Biden’s so-called gaffes: it was during the signing of the Affordable Care Act back in 2010 which then Vice President Biden had a role in getting passed through Congress, especially getting it through the Senate after the House already passed the bill where you had some Democratic Senator’s who were wavering on the bill, but it finally got passed: Vice President Biden, gives his speech at the signing ceremony where President Obama signs the bill and introduces the President and when he believes so one is looking and I guess forgets that his microphone is still on, tells the President in private: “that this is a big fucking deal” referring to the ACA.

The Vice President got in trouble for doing what we all do in private and what a lot of us do in public on TV ( if you’re familiar with cable TV ) which is swear in a public setting. He gets in trouble ( if you want to call it that ) for doing what everyone else does, but perhaps struggles to admit which is to cuss in public.

My point about Americans saying they want politicians in polling to be honest and truthful, but then get on politicians for not telling them they can have all of their cookies, cake, and ice cream ( meaning government services ) and never have to eat their vegetables, ( meaning new taxes ) Biden gets in trouble at least in the media for doing what we all do, but generally in private unless we’re really pissed at a bar or in traffic, or at the airport or some place which is let out our anger or amazement through swearing.

I think a lot of Joe Biden’s gaffes are just very funny and great material for Saturday Night Live, but a lot of them are really just him getting caught being very blunt and saying exactly what he feels about the given moment and perhaps giving out too much information. And that he represents what Americans tend to say ( at least in polling ) as far as who they want in their politicians: which are honest, truthful people who’ll tell them exactly what they think and hear. Even if 2-4 years later they vote those people out for doing exactly what they said they wanted them to do which was to be completely honest and truthful.

Posted in Democratic Party, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: ‘Joe Biden’s Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden’

Posted on April 29, 2019 by Erik Schneider
Image result for Opinion | Joe Biden's biggest 2020 competitor may be Joe Biden

Source:The Washington Post– Joe Biden:”being Vice President, is just not good enough?”

“Former vice president Joe Biden has finally entered the 2020 presidential campaign. Columnist Karen Tumulty argues that he must prove that he isn’t a politician of a different era.”

Source:The Washington Post

I mostly agree with what Karen Tumulty said about Joe Biden here, but I guess I would put it differently and add a few things.

If Joe Biden really wants to be President of the United States ( and I believe it’s a safe assumption that he does ) he should’ve ran for President in 2000. Looking back at least, a strong primary run against then Vice President Al Gore would’ve been good for Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party as well. Gore, only had one opponent at all in 2000 that being former Senator Bill Bradley, who didn’t even win a primary against Gore. Then Governor George W. Bush, had a very strong primary challenger in Senator John McCain, which I believe only made the Bush Campaign better because it served as a strong playoff for Bush which of course was the 2020 general election against Gore. Gore didn’t have that, because Democrats by 1999 had already decided that they wanted Vice President Gore and didn’t make any room for anyone else to run against him.

Then Senator Biden, should’ve run for President in 2004: as we know now before the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee, Senator Kerry wasn’t even the frontrunner before he won the nomination. He had to fight like hell just to try to raise some money and stay alive in late 2003 and wasn’t raising any money until he won the Iowa caucus. Senator Biden, would’ve been a strong contender that year because there were no frontrunners in that election on the Democratic side, but you had a Democratic Party that wanted to win and was prepared to get behind the nominee to defeat President Bush.

Then Vice President Biden, could’ve run for President for 2016: Hillary Clinton, was a strong frontrunner going in, but if you remember anything from 2007-08 she was not just the strong frontrunner going in to not just win the Democratic nomination then, but to beat Senator John McCain or whoever the Republican Party would nominate for the general election that year. But by the time super Tuesday was over in February 2008, her campaign was all but over, because then Senator Barack Obama won practically every major state on that election night.

It could’ve occurred to Vice President Biden and someone on his team that maybe Hillary isn’t as strong a frontrunner that she may seem to be and probably needs a strong challenger, which is exactly what she got, except it came from the Far-Left in the party from Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Not from the Vice President of the United States who has 100% name id not just in the party, but in the country. And was a loyal and great Vice President to a popular President in Barack Obama who the Democratic Party absolutely loves.

It’s that old cliche that you only get one chance to make a first impression, which of course is not only true but in politics you have to seize on the moments that you get and then take advantage of them. Which is what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, what Jimmy Carter did in 1980, what Bill Clinton did in 1992, what Barack Obama did in 2008. You can’t just assume that they’ll come back simply because you don’t you’re ready or you simply don’t want to run.

Would Barack Obama really had been the great Democratic contender that he was in 2008 had he waited until 2016 let’s say when he had already been in the Senate for 12 years before he decided to run for President, because he wanted more foreign policy experience? We’ll never know that of course, but probably not because 12 years later he would’ve already had a fairly long Congressional record and probably a lot of controversial votes and caught in Congressional speak and sound like a politician going a speech on the floor of the Senate, instead of this young vibrant man who spoke off the cuff and from his heart using beautiful language which is how he won the Democratic nomination in 08 and then the presidency, because he was so fresh, new, and likable, came off as a human being and not just as someone who was running for office.

And with Joe Biden, forget about being in the Senate for 12 years and instead triple that where he was one of the most powerful, influential, and respected not just Senator’s who has ever served, but members of Congress that has ever served in either the House or Senate and don’t fantasize for a moment that the other Democratic contenders don’t know exactly how long Biden’s Congressional record is and is going through every possible controversial vote ( at least in today’s Democratic Party ) that he has ever made and will try to pull anything out that they can get their hands on that could hurt the former Senator and Vice President.

It’s not Vice President Biden’s experience that I have issues with: experience is generally a good thing in life especially if you learn from it and then apply correctly and make good judgments, it’s the fact that and to paraphrase Joe Biden himself: this is your father’s Democratic Party anymore. Even 10 years ago Joe Biden would’ve been seen as a strong Center-Left Progressive Democrat who fights for the middle class and for civil rights, who wants an America where everyone can succeed, who will also defend and protect the country from foreign and domestic predators. This is what progressivism at least use to be and what it was about and what I believe it still is and what it means to be a Progressive.

The problem that Biden has is that the party is so far to the left now to the point that people who would be viewed as Progressives just 10-20 years ago like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are now seen as Centrists or even as Conservative Democrats, because you have this large and growing faction of Socialists in the party that view anyone to the Right of them as either Centrists or Conservatives, even if they’re Democrats with solid Center-Left credentials. Like a Joe Biden or Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton even who is one of the strongest and most famous Feminists anywhere in the world, but in today’s Democratic Party she looks Conservative. Or even Nancy Pelosi who is the Speaker of the House with a long Progressive record in Congress.

But then there’s the issue of Senator Biden’s Congressional record, so let’s talk about this so-called apology tour that he night have to go on to win the Democratic nomination:

It’s not that voting for the 2003 Iraq War will be a problem at least in the sense that it was the wrong decision and wrong war and we should’ve never been involved in and we knew that by the summer of 2003 when we learned that Saddam Hussein not only didn’t have nuclear weapons program, but he didn’t even had weapons of mass destruction. And then the chaos in the country after the Hussein Regime was toppled without even putting up a fight. Biden, should have to explain that and admit he made a bad call there.

It’s the other votes that he had in Congress that 25-30 years later still look like very solid votes at least as far as how the policies turned out, whether the Far-Left of the party likes them or not:

like 1994 Crime Bill where we saw record low crimes rates in America during the 1990s, including in big cities with large minority populations like Chicago, New York, and Washington.

Or how about the 1996 Welfare to Work Law where we saw record lows for poverty in America, because you had all of these people in poverty who were going back to school and getting the skills that they need to become economically self-sufficient and were finally able to get good jobs for themselves. Senator Biden’s support for deficit reduction and free trade, you could add to his possible apology tour and explain why he no longer supports these successful policies.

I could be wrong here ( and of course that wouldn’t be the first time ) and perhaps the Democratic Party even the Far-Left is so tired of losing and seeing Donald J. Trump ( the king of real reality TV ) as President and want to take his American Nationalism Show off the air for good and will support any popular national Democrat including Joe Biden in order to defeat President Trump. We saw that in 1992 when the entire Democratic Party united behind then Governor Bill Clinton and in 1976 under then Governor Jimmy Carter. But those are just two elections and as Will Rogers once said he’s not a member of any organized party: he’s a Democrat.

The Democratic Party tends to put ideological purity with the current Far-Left base of the party over electability, at least as the presidential level. And we’ll see which course they take in 2020 and how they treat Joe Biden. Will they get behind Joe, or stay home, go third-party with someone like Jill Stein and back a Socialist instead.

Posted in Originals, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NFL Films: ‘How a Revolutionary Scouting Philosophy Led To The Greatest Draft Ever!’

Posted on April 26, 2019 by kireschneider
Image result for How a Revolutionary Scouting Philosophy

Source:NFL Films– The Pittsburgh Steelers, celebrating a Steeler TD during Super Bowl 14

“Check out how the Pittsburgh Steelers engineered the greatest draft ever in 1974!”

Source:NFL Films

If you want to know what made the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers great which made them at least arguably the greatest NFL dynasty ever ( you could also argue for the 1980s San Francisco 49ers ) it’s head coach Chuck Noll and his personal office at the Steelers.

Chuck Noll, wasn’t just the head coach of the Steelers: he was also their general manager which gave him the same authority over football operations for the Steelers, as George Allen had with the Redskins, Don Shula with the Miami Dolphins, Vince Lombardi had with the Green Bay Packers. All these coaches like Noll weren’t just the head coaches of their clubs, but also ran football operations. Meaning they decided who played for their teams. They ran the drafts for their clubs and made the final decisions as far as who their team should draft, trade, sign as free agents, and who to let go.

But it’s just not Chuck Noll being in charge of football operations of the Steelers that made them so great in the mid and late 1970s, but it’s how he did that. The Steelers didn’t draft and sign players based on any traditional score. Like concentrating on particular big schools and programs, or making any racial or ethnic considerations before drafting players. They had a large scouting and personal office led by Personal Director Bill Nunn and scouted the whole country at all levels of college football. And went after the best players possible where they could get them. Just didn’t concentrate on big division 1 programs like Southern California, Michigan, Ohio State or others, they went everywhere including division schools, including historically African-American schools like Alabama A&M.

The 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers, were run like any great American corporation: hire the best people possible regardless of where they went to school, who they are, their family backgrounds, where they’re from, regardless of their race or ethnicity. “Who is the best player for our club and where do we go to sign him and then bring that player in.” Which was Chuck Noll’s personal philosophy with the Steelers, which is how he and Bill Nunn are able to sign players like a John Stallworth, ( Hall of Fame ) Joe Greene, ( Hall of Fame Mel Blount ( Hall of Fame ) and many others. While other NFL clubs were primarily if not exclusively concentrating on big schools and programs.

Posted in NFL Greatest, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on April 25, 2019 by Rik Schneider
Image result for 3_47 What If Fox News Covered Trump the Way It Covered Obama?

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

Source:The New Democrat 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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