David Von Pein: The Life and Times of John F. Kennedy, 1964

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat

Source: David Von Pein: The Life and Times of John F. Kennedy, 1964

Another film about the life of John F. Kennedy our 35th President of the United States. This came out in 1964 less than a year after President Kennedy was assassinated. And he was already pretty popular as president in 1963 when he was killed and if anything he became more popular after he died. Perhaps because of all the questions rising about who killed him and did the assassin, or assassins have help is assassinating him in Dallas, Texas. I believe a lot of Jack Kennedy’s support comes from Hollywood. He was really our first hip president and had he been elected in the 1980s, or even in 1976, he would have been seen as a cool president. President Kennedy, did have same major accomplishments in his short time as president, but most of them had to do with foreign policy.

Jack Kennedy today I believe is both very popular personally, but his policies and politics and what he advocated are very popular in the country. He was a true Social Liberal who believed in both economic and personal freedom, as well as a safety net for people who truly need it. And because of this you even have Republicans who say they support Social Security and Medicare, as well as a public safety net for people who truly need it. JFK believed in a strong defense, but didn’t believe that America should, or could police the world by themselves. And again this is where Americans tend to be. We’re not dovish as a country, or neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy. We want to be able to defend ourselves and help people around the world, but not have to do everything ourselves.

So back in the early 1960s I believe a lot of the reasons for JFK’s popularity had to do with the fact that he was hip and cool. That Hollywood liked him and saw them as one of them, that he had friends in Hollywood. And that he was very different culturally from a lot of the president’s that had come before who were very traditional culturally. JFK also had a beautiful young hip wife in Jackie that the country including Hollywood loved and saw her as royalty. They were ahead of their time culturally in an era that was finally moving away from the 1940s and 1950s and into the 1960s which looked almost completely different as a decade as far as the role of women, how people lived and talked, the types of entertainment that was coming out. And these are I believe big reasons for the popularity of John Kennedy.

Posted in JFK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sheldon Richman: ‘Planned Parenthood, Social Peace & The Libertarian Approach’

Planned Parenthood

Source:Planned Parenthood– pro-Planned Parenthood supporters. (If I had to guess)

Source:The New Democrat

“The controversy raging over Planned Parenthood is one of the most acrimonious public discussions in recent memory. While the immediate issue concerns the disposition of fetal tissue after abortion (pregnant women can have tissue donated for medical research), the controversy taps into the more basic, and highly charged, conflict between defenders of women’s reproductive rights — the right to choose an abortion — and defenders of unborn children’s right to life. But my purpose here is not to settle that conflict…

From Free Association

“The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, spoke to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and during the hearing she defended Planned Parenthood making clear that the recent videos released were fraudulent and not indicative of the organization’s actions. Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz challenged Richards with a graph that showed abortions exceeding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. The information on the slide seemed, at the very least, misleading. Ana Kasparian (The Point) and Ben Mankiewicz (What The Flick?!) hosts of The Young Turks discuss.

Do you think Richards did a good job defending Planned Parenthood? Will Chaffetz’s slide convince people that Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory? Let us know in the comments below…

Planned Parenthood President SCHOOLS Republican Congressman (2015) - Google SearchSource:The Young Turks– Cecile Richards: President of Planned Parenthood.

This is going to sound strange coming from a Liberal, but I’m going to make a fiscally conservative, perhaps even classically liberal case for publicly funding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood serves low-income mothers and women who otherwise would have a very difficult time getting birth control and other women’s health care. Do people who call themselves Conservatives really want low-income women having more kids while they’re still collecting public assistance?

Birth control is pro-life, because it prevents future Americans from having to live in poverty. Living with a single mother without the education and resources to raise their kids properly. Planned Parenthood is pro-life, because it provides millions of Americans with health care that they probably wouldn’t be able to get.

Tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood means the Federal Government doesn’t have to create some new Federal agency to provide the health care to millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it anywhere else.

Planned Parenthood means a smaller Federal Government, fewer Federal workers, less Federal tax dollars being spent on these services, because they’re not being provided by the Federal Government instead.

We’re not talking about taxpayer funding of abortions which are illegal anyway and I support that except as Sheldon Richman put it under extreme circumstances. Like going through the pregnancy would kill the mother. What we’re talking about is health care not including abortions for millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it otherwise.

I know the libertarian argument about this is not government’s business and that they should butt out of what goes on in the private sector. But tell me where does that system exist in the world so I could look at that and see how it works.

If you don’t have government serving people and seeing to it that people who might not be able to get by without that assistance gets help that they need, then what is government for. What’s the point of having a public sector at all?

Government is supposed to serve the people. Not direct them, but to see to it that we all have a good shot at making it in life on our own. And preventing unwanted pregnancies and women from having to raise their kids in poverty, is part of that public service.

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

Double Cross: Sam Giancana & Marilyn Monroe (February 17th, 1992)

Marilyn & The Chairman of The Board

Marilyn & The Chairman of The Board

Source:The Daily Review

The whole point about Marilyn Monroe’s housekeeper being asleep at Marilyn Monroe’s house the night that she died and that she was next door, or down the hall, tells you how bogus (to be nice) the claim that Sam Giancana had anything to do with the death of Marilyn. The housekeeper would have heard a break in, or at least of heard a struggle between Marilyn and the supposed assassin, or assassins. Keep in mind this younger Sam Giancana, is the nephew of the Italian mobster Sam Giancana. So I guess you could say why would young Sam be accusing his own uncle of murdering one of the top Hollywood Goddess’s of all-time? The answer being why not. It wouldn’t be the first time that some has used their famous name to make a lot of money legitimately.

Marilyn Monroe had she been alive today and lets say in her mid, or late thirties with the same personality and physical futures and talents, would be the OMG awesome pop princess, or whatever. She has a lot of fans from this era who look at the world that way. And they have a hard time believing how could anyone that fabulous lets say could take their own life. Which is very hard to believe and I understand that. But if you knew Marilyn and how irresponsible she was and how unhappy she was and the fact that she did have real mental issues and was even committed even at one point, you know she was a mental train wreck waiting to explode. She drank too much and took way too many pills because of how unhappy she was.

I don’t believe Marilyn killed herself intentionally. I’m not implying suicide here, but when you’re drunk as she was that night and you’re unhappy to begin with and you’re taking all sorts of medication at night to try to get you through the day and you take all of those drugs including the alcohol at the same time, very bad things are going to happen to you. Since you’re not completely aware of what you’re doing you end up finally taking too much. She died from an overdose and no one helped her do that. Other than maybe giving her some motivation and reason to feel unhappy. But we’re still not talking about a murder here. One way to look at the death of Marilyn Monroe is to look at what happens to drunk drivers and they get in accidents and kill themselves by accident as a result.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Marilyn, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The North Star: M. Harlan Hoke- Regime Change: Ditch The Green Party for Socialist Campaigns

Attachment-1-240

Source: The Green Party-

Source:The New Democrat

I started blogging about this four years ago when Occupy Wall Street came out and argued that how about the so-called Progressives in America like the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party, combined with the Green Party and the Democratic Socialist Party, all came together and formed one Democratic Socialist Party. The Green Party is already the first, or second largest third-party in America. Competing right now with the Libertarian Party. (For that coveted prize) You take the Bernie Sanders coalition in and outside of the Democratic Party, the Progressive Caucus in Congress and the Jill Stein supporters in the Green Party and might have a party big enough to at least get in the presidential debates. Get on most of the ballots of most of the states in the country.

I believe right now the reason why we don’t have more lets say New-Left, (to be nice) or Far-Left (to be real) members of Congress in either the House, or Senate at the state and local levels in office, is because they are so spread out. You have 4-5 at least social democratic parties in America who aren’t Marxist and they tend to believe in the same things and yet they end up running against each other in different campaigns. As well trying to run a credible campaign against the Democrat and Republican that they have to beat to win that office. Instead of having all of these Social Democrats run against each other in the general election, run against each other in Democratic Socialist, or Social Democratic primary instead. And have one person with one larger party behind them to take on the Democrat and Republicans.

Democratic socialism, is at its highest peak in popularity really since at least the New Deal era and the 1940s. Why not take advantage of that which is what I would be asking my fellow Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, if I was one of them and not a Liberal instead. How about one Bernie Sanders, or Jill Stein running for president instead of having two people who agree on most of the issues running against each other. And the same thing with Congressional races and state government races and everything else. That way you combine all your resources from a large group of small contributors and social democratic business people. To take on the Democrat and the Republican instead of essentially running against yourself while trying to beat the Democrat and Republican and perhaps a Libertarian who emerges, all at the same time.
ENAA: Should Socialists Support Bernie Sanders?

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

Goldie Hawn: Housesitter (1992)

Nick C_ Housesitter (1992) With Goldie Hawn

Source:Nick C– Goldie Hawn in Housesitter.

Source:The Daily Review

“Short clip from the 1992 movie Housesitter. Goldie Hawn showing off her assets! This is how jeans are suppose to look. Not that ridiculous low rise mess.”

From Nick C

Goldie Hawn’s character is just getting off the bus in this small Massachusetts town to see the home that Steve Martin has in the movie.

Goldie Hawn in Housesitter - Short Clip - Google Search

Source:Make a GIF– Goldie Hawn in Housestiiter.

Goldie Hawn has just arrived at the home of Steve Martin’s in the movie Housesitter and is checking it out. While every guy who watched this movie (and a lot of us saw it just to check her out in it) were checking her out in this movie. She’s a Goddess in a basic pair of 501 Levi’s denim jeans, western boots, and a red tank top.

Goldie Hawn in Housesitter - Short Clip - Google Search (1)

Source:Make a GIF– Goldie Hawn in Housesitter.

Goldie Hawn’s new chair in the movie Housesitter. She tells the guy who owns the market (played by Donald Moffat) who just happens to be Steve Martin’s father in the movie, that she could live in this chair. And he responds by saying: “I don’t see how.” Not a great film, but it has it’s moments.

Goldie Hawn

Source:TBS– Goldie Hawn chair-sitting.

I’ll be one of the first to admit that Housesitter is not a great movie and perhaps not a very good movie. It was pretty funny though at least Goldie Hawn was pretty funny it, but I guess she’s funny in anything because she’s Goldie Hawn. One of the best comedians and comedic actress’s of all-time.

But Housesitter is also one of those movies that guys such as myself will watch even if it’s not a very good movie, if it has a beautiful sexy woman in it. And in Goldie Hawn’s case a hot sexy woman in it. This scene with Goldie going up to rural Massachusetts to check out a house that she knew of because of a guy she slept with the night before that she met for the first time (played by Steve Martin) told her about this place. Which sort of shows the quality of this movie, is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Checking out Goldie in those Levis and the suede boots as well with the tank and the coverage of her in that outfit, with her body, the cute butt and the beautiful legs and everything, sort of reminds me of The Dukes of Hazzard where you don’t have to be a fan of that show to be a fan of Daisy Duke (played by Catherine Bach) on that show. Just seeing her in it and seeing her like that is really all the motivation to see that movie.

Goldie Hawn is a true Hollywood Goddess. Very funny, a hell of an actress, gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, beautiful body, who wears Levis about as well as any woman can. And if you get through let’s say the first ten-minutes or so of Housesitter before Goldie appears, I believe she might keep you in the movie the rest of the way.

Posted in Action, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A&E Biography: Faye Dunaway

Best Actress

Best Actress

Source:The Daily Review

I guess when I think of great dramatic comedic actress’s and what I mean by that is actress’s who combine both dramatic and comedic abilities in the same role, not actress’s who are great at both comedy and drama, but women who do both in the same roles, I think of Faye Dunaway, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall and a few others. But Faye is towards the top of this list if not at the top. Because she has this great ability at putting things exactly as they are with real feeling, but doing it in a great comedic and humorous way as well. Like the line she had in Network when she tells the Max Schumacher character (played by William Holden) that, “you aren’t the worst lay I’ve ever had. God knows I’ve had worst.”

Faye Dunaway is this tall gorgeous, baby-faced adorable actress, with this great dramatic and comedic abilities. Who seems to specialize at playing very cute gorgeous women who are very sharp and have a lot of energy and who are also smart asses. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that if Faye were a career soap opera actress she would be the best ever at that. She would have won have multiple awards for that every year and been on the top soap if not top show on TV every year. Best Actress should almost be her title. She’s really the best at whatever she does at least from her era. Lets call it the Baby Boom. Network is one of my favorite movies and other than maybe Peter Finch she was the best actor/actress in that movie. And Network is the perfect example of what dramatic comedy is. A movie that takes on serious subjects, but does it in a humorous way.

In many ways I see Faye Dunaway as a satirist. Someone who uses both drama and comedy to talk about serious subjects and does it in a very entertaining and sexy way. Chinatown with Jack Nicholson is another example of this where detective movies tend to be funny and Jack Nicholson is pretty funny in really anything he does so putting together with Faye Dunaway is an all-star combination. Network is Fay’s best and most famous part and where she was really the best on a great all-star cast with a great production team. But she’s had a lot of other great roles that’s shown all of her great abilities. Like Chinatown, The Towering Inferno. She’s a Hall of Fame actress who could’ve gone into the Hall of Fame thirty-years ago and I hope she’s around forever.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michaels Backporch: ‘Hardcopy Feb. 4, 1991 Charles Manson Pirate Prison Tapes’

Hardcopy

Source:Michaels Backporch– from Hard Copy.

“Description: Hardcopy Feb. 4, 1991 Charles Manson Pirate Prison Tapes Charles Manson Interview TV by Hard Copy was produced and distributed by Paramount Domestic Television and, for much of its time on air, was often aired with its sister show, the Hollywood news program Entertainment Tonight as part of an hour-long programming block sold to local stations.”

From Michaels Backporch

The Manson murders twenty years later, actually twenty years after The Manson Family murderers were convicted of those evil murders.

I mean, when I think of evil serial murderers Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy are at the top of my list at least when you’re talking about individuals. The KKK as a group are probably just as bad though. Manson ordering murders of people because they were literally part of the successful establishment. Imagine that as your defense in court. But not only that, but ordering the murders of the wrong people. He wanted Dennis Wilson murdered and wasn’t aware that Wilson had moved out and other people moved in. Roman Polanski and his girlfriend Sharon Tate.

Charlie Manson wasn’t a dumb person. Certainly uneducated and not educated in the traditional sense. But we’re talking about someone who didn’t functioned properly mentally. Who lacked moral character, actually didn’t really have any. Who believed he was above the law and that somehow these murders was benefiting society or something. Even though again he ordered the murders of the wrong people in the sense that it was Dennis Wilson that he wanted murdered.

The Manson crew didn’t realize that Wilson no longer lived in his home and that new group of people are now using that home. The Manson Family soldiers I guess who were made up of high school and college dropouts and people who were kicked out by their parents, didn’t understand that.

Charlie Manson created a cult of evil an even culture of evil. I guess he was pissed off at society after leaving prison for the last time in his life and was looking for a way to get back at the people that he believed wronged him.

We’re talking about a man who grew up in prison and at 32 in 1967 had spent more than half his life in prison. And even though prison was always the best and most comfortable place for him in life he now believed he was going to punish the people for sending him there.

When Manson gets out he finds his societal dropouts in the Manson soldiers with the young women, Tex Watson and others and now had the crew to commit the evil acts that he didn’t have the balls to do himself.

Charlie Manson is the perfect example of why we have life in prison and life without parole in prison, because you don’t want people like that living freely ever again.

Posted in Mind of Manson, Originals, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lifetime: Intimate Portrait Angie Dickinson

Source:The Daily Review

When I think of Angie Dickinson I’m staring at those eyes and locked into that voice. She reminds me a of smaller Gena Rowlands, another women who just looks and sounds incredible, but who is also a hell of an actress. A true goddess who is both hot and baby-faced adorable where they don’t seem to age and always look like very young women even if they’re in their forties and fifties. Gena is a bigger and taller Angie, but she might be just as adorable. When you look this great and you also can act and make people laugh and sing, you’ll never have to worry about finding a job in Hollywood. Just as long as you don’t piss off the wrong people. And an actress will always be able to be either on TV, or doing movies, or both.

There two movies and perhaps a certain TV show that you’re familiar with when I think of Angie Dickinson. Ocean’s Eleven from 1960, where she plays the wife of compulsive gambler Danny Ocean (played by Frank Sinatra) and The Chase from 1966 where she plays the girlfriend of the sheriff. (played by Marlin Brando) She has a small part in Ocean’s, but a key one and has a great scene where she tells of Danny’s mistress on the phone. When the mistress is confessing to her that she’s seeing her husband. And Angie tells the mistress that, “what you’re saying just makes me want him more.” She has a much bigger role in The Chase where she’s the girlfriend of the sheriff and is very close to Marlin in that movie.

But I believe Angie’s Dickinson’s most important accomplishment to Hollywood is Police Women. Where she plays a police detective sergeant in that movie. That show comes out in 1974 three years before Charlie’s Angels and she plays this gorgeous sexy smart detective sergeant on that show. Who leads police investigation’s and kicks ass at the same time. Police detective shows with female leads now are common and have been since the 1990s. But a big reason for that was Police Women and Angie Dickinson. She showed that you could look like a goddess and also be smart and professional and do important jobs in society and be in charge. And because of Angie NBC, CBS and ABC, (and perhaps even FOX) are always looking for that new hit female detective show.

Angie is simply one of the cutest, hottest, sexiest actress’s with the great voice to match of all-time. I could listen to her read from a phone book, or a tennis rule book and I would end up being fascinated with that bland material that would be great reading material for insomniacs if it was read by just about everyone else. But she makes everything look and sound interesting simply because of who she is. She was great on the Alfred Hitchcock Hour in the early 1960s, playing a women who simply marries men for money and tries to get her latest boyfriend to murder her husband. She’s a true Hollywood Goddess in the sense that she’s an incredibly attractive women, but also a great actress. And she’s one of the top actress’s of her generation and in the business today.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notes On Liberty: Brandon Christensen: ‘Trying to Make Sense of Left & Right’

Center-Left & Center-Right

Source:The New Democrat– as shocking as this may sound: Liberal vs Conservative, is not Left vs Right.

“Ok. Clearly we need to be using terms that mean the same things to both of us. It’s your thread so tell me what constitutes ‘The American Right’ and what constitutes ‘The American Left’. Once we have a common understanding of terminology we can resume the discussion.

I have been working on a post about this very topic, and this conversation is helping me immensely. Thanks.

First, I think there is a distinction that has to be made between the ‘ideological’ and the ‘political’. The ideological rests atop a higher tier than does the political, like a pyramid. The ideological tier houses philosophical and moral insights, which are produced through the academy and in think tanks. The political tier houses organizations dedicated to parties (I think that factions and parties are two different components of a society, and that factions represent a tier below the ideological and above the political).

The American Right is ideological. The GOP is political. (Factions would consist of actors like bureaucracies, trade unions, industrialists, banks, medical doctors, etc., but can also be used to describe intra-party, or coalitional, differences) The American Right is currently home to three broad ideologies: neo-conservatism (elite and moderate), libertarianism (elite and radical), and traditionalism (populist and radical). I emphasize ‘currently’ because neoconservatives and libertarians were at one point Leftist factions in US history, and could easily end up there again in the near future. In many post-colonial and post-socialist societies, for example, both of these ideologies are considered to be on the Left.

The American Left is currently home to three broad ideologies: fascism, communism, and racism. Just kidding! The three ideologies are, I would argue: New Deal liberalism (elite and moderate), technocratic liberalism (elite and radical), and progressivism (populist and radical).

New Deal liberals and neo-conservatives are only moderate because they are dominated by Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers dominate the population at the moment. Libertarians and the technocrats are broadly younger and more cerebral (hence the radicalism). Traditionalism and progressivism are ideologies for the vulgar mob, of course.

Ideology, using the pyramid analogy, trickles down from the top tier into the factional and political tiers. This is just how it works in societies governed by laws rather than by men. Libertarians have been dominating the ideological discussion for the last 30 years or so, and the technocrats have been playing defense, largely because they are politically aligned – wrongly, of course – with socialism’s failure, but also because technocrats are just libertarians who don’t have the chutzpah to become non-conformists.

Successful politicians from the Democrat Party have been trying to balance their New Deal liberalism with the insights of their technocratic betters, but have been calling themselves ‘progressives’ because of the populist narrative and the fact that they need the votes of the vulgar mob to be successful.

I already don’t like this because I don’t think the Left deserves to be considered ‘liberal’ at all, and there is also the shortcoming of being strictly American in scope. We have got to think in internationalist terms when we discuss power and liberty. NOL has tried to hash this whole issue out before, by the way, and numerous times.”

Source:Notes On Liberty

I agree with the commentator on this NOL piece somewhat. The Democratic Party and Republican Party are political parties. (You don’t say. Now tell me something that I don’t know.) I say that only because a political party is not the same thing as a political faction and movement.

Political parties are in the business only to win elections, to stay in power, and gain political power. Political factions are in the business to advance their movements. And generally they’ll be home to a political party, but in many cases they’ll only be a faction in it and generally not even a majority faction.

I don’t think there’s ever been an America right or an American left. They’re different political factions on the Right that have things in common with each other, but they have real differences as well. People who I you would call Classical Conservatives or Constitutional Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians, the William Buckley’s and Barry Goldwater’s of the world, have things in common with Libertarians (classical and anarcho) but they also have things in common with the Christian-Right, people who would be called Christian Nationalists today. But they have enough disagreements that keep them from ever becoming part of the same political movement.

On the so-called American Left, you have center-left Progressives, FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ Democrats. But then you have the Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) people who would be called Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders movement, the Green Party, who share similar goals as let’s say Progressive Democrats, but want more government involvement, more spending, especially from the Federal level, more government programs, more taxes, to deal with the economic issues of today. Whereas the Progressive believes in progress and is a lot ideological. And tends to believe the best way to deal with economic issues and problems and help people who are struggling, is to empower people to help themselves, even if that means more government investment.

The modern Republican Party still has a large conservative wing. But it has a neoconservative wing in it as well, people who are a lot more hawkish as it relates to foreign policy, national security, and domestic security, but a lot more progressive than the Barry Goldwater’s of the world on economic policy.

The modern Democratic Party has a progressive wing in it. But it’s always had a socialist wing in it, Democratic Socialists from Henry Wallace in the 1930s and 40s, George McGovern in the 1960s and 70s, Dennis Kucinich in the 1990s and 2000s, Bernie Sanders today. But it’s always had a center-right, a classical liberal (not leftist) wing in it, from the Thomas Jefferson’s from when the party was founded, to John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, and Bill Clinton from the 1990s.

I think one of the problems with Americans politics is that a lot of Americans don’t understand it. And people get labeled with political labels that don’t reflect their political ideology accurately for good and bad. The so-called mainstream media is a big cause of this problem, because many times they don’t understand the political labels, factions, and ideologies that they talk and report about.

For example, if you believe Barack Obama is a foreigner who was born in another country with no real proof of his American citizenship, you get labeled as a Conservative. Even though no real Conservative would want to have anything to do with the Birthers. Because of course they believe the President was born in Hawaii.

If you believe in political correctness and that any critical speech that is directed at any minority group or minority in America is somehow not only a form of bigotry and hate, but that it should be censored and that government should step in shut down that type of speech and punish the people who express it, you get labeled as a Liberal. Even though the First Amendment was written by the Founding Liberals of America who gave us Freedom of Speech. And Freedom of Speech is and has always been the first Liberal Value.

If you look at the American political spectrum it goes from the Far-Left where you have Marxists who are Far-Left as people can get and then move a little right and you’ll find Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats. To Progressives who are still on the mainstream Left in America if you think of the New Deal and Great Society and move right from that. And you’ll find where I am the center-right where Liberals (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) sit.

Then move to the Center-Right of the Republican Party and you’ll find the Conservatives. A bit further right than that and you’ll find the Libertarians. Go Far-Right and you’ll find the Christian-Right in America. Who want their religious beliefs and lifestyle enforces by government on the rest of the country.

The reason why Liberals are center-right and Conservatives are also center-right, because both sides as hard as this is to believe, both believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, the U.S. Constitution, equal rights, equal justice, individual freedom, property rights. But where they differ, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Which is what being a Conservative is all about. Whereas Liberals believe in moving forward.

The reason why Liberals and Conservatives tend to look bad the with average American voter lets say who is not a political junky, or a hyper-partisan and tend to vote based on who they believe best represents them and not their party, is because the fringes on both sides who see bipartisanship and governing as surrender. And who promote big statist views on both sides get labeled either as Liberal, or Conservative based on what side of the political aisle they’re on.

According to the mainstream media, today’s Liberals are big government Socialists, or Statists who think people are stupid and need big government to manage both their economic and personal affairs for them. And Conservatives are people who want America to police and dominate the world and replace the U.S. Constitution with their version of the Bible. And throw all poor people off of public assistance, cut off all immigration and are all bigots.

The facts are Liberals are center-right. Everywhere outside of America, in the developed world, Liberals are seen as center-right, not center-left or far-left. People who believe in freedom and opportunity for all. Again individual freedom, plus social justice. Using government to expand freedom, not government dependence.

The real statists in America, are not Liberals or Conservative. But Socialists on the Left, who want a government big enough to manage people’s affairs for them. And Christian-Nationalists on the Right, who want to throw out the U.S, Constitution and our form of government and replace it with a fundamentalist, religious form of government. But they get called liberal or conservative by the media, as well people from these statist movements, who self-describe their politics as liberal or conservative. Hopefully this lessens the confusion about what liberal and conservative means in America.

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

Posted in Classical Liberalism, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Reason Magazine: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Vice President Joe Biden Bashes Abortion, Defends Religious Freedom

Vice President Joe Biden & Father Matt Malone

Vice President Joe Biden & Father Matt Malone

Source:The New Democrat 

I have a problem with Vice President Biden’s I guess latest position on abortion saying that abortion is not only always wrong, but then life starts at conception. Meaning when the mother of the fetus is actually pregnant. If he was anti-choice on abortion all together, I wouldn’t have a problem with this position. But I think someone who says life starts at conception, but is still in favor of choice when it comes to abortion, is essentially saying that women have a right to murder their babies. If you believe that life starts at conception then how could also you believe in choice when it comes to abortion and not be in favor of murder at least on a limited basis. I can understand why an Irish-Catholic like Joe Biden would want to appeal to Democrats if he runs for president. But this is not how you do it.

Joe Biden’s entire 36 year career in the U.S. Senate which is also his whole Congressional career he was pro-choice on abortion. By the way his first year in the Senate 1973 is when Roe V. Wade was also decided that gave American women the right to decide for themselves whether to complete their pregnancies, or end them on their own. Then Senator Biden always argued that reproductive rights and the right to choose on abortion was always been between the women and the doctor. That this was not up to government to interfere in these most personal of decisions. Which is my position as well just as long as women are paying for this choice and not putting the cost of these decisions on the backs of taxpayers . But I don’t take that position, because I believe abortion is murder and that I believe women, or men have that right.

It seems to me at the very least that if you’re position on abortion is that you’re pro-choice, then you take that position because you don’t believe that life starts at conception. Whether you’re Catholic, or come from any other faith, or don’t practice religion at all. That life starts at the very least towards the end of pregnancies which is why you would be against what is called partial-birth abortion. Or life starts at birth. So of you take that position you’re not saying that women have the right to murder their babies, because you believe a fetus doesn’t become a baby until its actually born. But if you say, “of course life starts at conception, but so what this is the women’s decision and if she wants to murder her baby by aborting it, that’s her choice.” A position like that would be hard to defend.

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