Gresham College: Professor Vernon Bogdanor- Aneurin Bevan and The Socialist Ideal

Posted on June 12, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Aneurin Bevan

Source: Gresham College– Professor Aneurin Bevan 

Source:Gresham College: Professor Vernon Bogdanor- Aneurin Bevan and The Socialist Ideal

I’m not that familiar with Aneurin Bevan, but as a Socialist, he seems to differ from Karl Marx, at least in the sense that Bevan’s brand of socialism was democratic. That you got elected to power and to govern and brought your policies with you and your form of government with you. Whereas Karl Marx was more of a revolutionary. And was always talking about revolution, similar to Fidel Castro. That the people should rise up and take over the government and keep power once they get in. Along with bringing their socialist policies about.

The Democratic Socialist and the Marxist are different. The Democratic Socialist sees private enterprise and even capitalism as perhaps a necessary evil in order to have a functioning economy where as many people as possible can do well. As well as the financing mechanism to fund the welfare state, that will take care of everyone’s basic necessities in life. Like health care and health insurance. And Bevan was one of the designers of the British government-run and owned health care system. Health care, obviously being a basic necessity that we all need to live well.

What all Socialists have in common and perhaps what would be the so-called Socialist Ideal, is that they all see a world where there wouldn’t be any poor, or rich people. There goal is not so much freedom, but equality. That everyone is the same economically with no more, or less than anyone else. Which is why Socialists get labeled as Utopians, because they see that Utopia, or paradise where everyone thrives and doesn’t have to go without, or has too much. At least according to everyone else in society.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Creators: Thomas Sowell- ‘Who Lost Iraq?’

Posted on June 11, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Who Lost Iraq_ (2015) - Google Search

Source:POLITICO– President’s George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama, both lost Iraq?

“After the pro-Western government of China was forced to flee to the island of Taiwan in 1949, when the Communists took over mainland China, bitter recriminations in Washington led to the question: “Who lost China?” China was, of course, never ours to lose, though it might be legitimate to ask if a different American policy toward China could have led to a different outcome.

In more recent years, however, Iraq was in fact ours to lose, after U.S. troops vanquished Saddam Hussein’s army and took over the country. Today, we seem to be in the process of losing Iraq, if not to ISIS, then to Iran, whose troops are in Iraq fighting ISIS.

While mistakes were made by both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, those mistakes were of different kinds and of different magnitudes in their consequences, though both sets of mistakes are worth thinking about, so that so much tragic waste of blood and treasure does not happen again.

Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place is something that will no doubt be debated by historians and others for years to come. But, despite things that could have been done differently in Iraq during the Bush administration, in the end President Bush listened to his generals and launched the military “surge” that crushed the terrorist insurgents and made Iraq a viable country.”

From Creators

Thomas Sowell, said in his piece that China wasn’t America’s to lose in the 1940s, but then suggested President Barack Obama lost Iraq. As if Iraq was America’s to lose. Tom Sowell also suggested that America invading Iraq in the first place, which is what we did under President George W. Bush, might have been a mistake.

Last time I checked, America doesn’t own Iraq. We no longer occupy Iraq. This might be the first and last time that I’ll ever quote Vladimir Putin on anything, at least something that I agree with him on, but he was asked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And he said: “A country that can’t defend itself, is not a country.” What I would add to that is a country that can’t, or won’t defend itself and Iraq certainly qualifies as that, is just a piece a land where people live.

During President Bush’s administration, it took them four years just to get Iraq stabilized. Because they didn’t have enough troops to occupy the country in the first place. And under the Bush/Cheney policy, America would stay in Iraq until there are no longer any dangers and security challenges in Iraq. They would say that we would stay there until Iraq can defend and govern themselves. Which tells Iraq that they don’t need to defend and govern themselves, because America will always do that for them and our taxpayers will always pay for the government and defense of their country.

President Obama, figured this out pretty quickly when he came to office in 2009, that for Iraq to ever become stabilize and be a place that can govern and defend itself, they need to know that America won’t be there to that for them indefinitely. That they need a government and security forces that can take care of and defend the country themselves.

The Obama Administration will work with and help the Iraqi Government as long as the Iraqi Government and the Iraq people are doing what they can for themselves. Under the Maliki Government in Iraq, what they did was centralize more power with the Central Government, especially with Prime Minister Al-Maliki and became corrupt. And lost the trust of the Iraq people and lost their power as a result.

Iraq, post-War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein, has had their own government for ten years now, going back to 2005. We’ve been training their defense forces for what twelve years now. And that’s because the Bush Administration kicked out the old Iraqi military and they started from scratch, in the midst of a civil war in Iraq.

A country that can’t and won’t defend itself, is not a country. Iraq was never America’s to lose, because we never owned it. We went in their by ourselves for the most part and have paid for most of the costs of our being there and occupation. Along with millions of Iraqi’s who have died. If anyone lost Iraq, it was Iraq themselves.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Washington Post: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: A New Definition of Freedom in America

Posted on June 11, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The Washington Post

It’s great to see Democrats talking about freedom again. This is something that Liberals and Progressives should be talking about anyway. Since we created freedom in America. With the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the national infrastructure system, regulatory state and safety net. Liberals and Progressives, just tend to differ on what freedom is and means. Liberals, tend to be more interested in individual rights and opportunity. Tools that can be used to be able to live in freedom and build a good life for yourself and your family.

Progressives and Social Democrats, tend to be more interested in social welfare rights. The ability to not have to go without. That the basic necessities in life will always be guaranteed. To always be guaranteed education, housing, health care, income, food, health insurance and perhaps some others. That these rights would be guaranteed by the Federal Government, of course. All part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, especially Freedom From Want and his Economic Bill of Rights.

And freedom to me as a Liberal, is the ability for one to live their own life and be completely responsible for their own life. To make their own decisions and live with the consequences for good and bad. To not have government interfere with their economic, or personal affairs. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. To have the knowledge and resources to be able to provide for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions. Freedom to me, is about tools and power. Where government comes in, is not to make sure everyone is taken care of. And not as FDR put to have the Freedom From Want, but the freedom to control their own destiny in life. Freedom of Self-Determination.

Hillary Clinton on Saturday, will give a huge presidential campaign speech at the FDR Four Freedoms Park in New York. And it will be about her vision for America and why she wants to be President of the United States. At least that is how its being built. And she’ll have the opportunity to start to bring me over to her side, if her speech covers the themes that I just talked about when it comes to what freedom means. And if she talks about she wants an America where all Americans can succeed and have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families and have both economic and personal security and not the freedom to not have to take responsibility for yourself and be taken care of by government, she’ll be able to impress me and bring her to her side.

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

Grit-TV: Russ Feingold- Politics For The People

Posted on June 10, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Grit-TV

Source: Grit-TV- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold D, Wisconsin & Laura Flanders

Source:Grit-TV

This interview was taped in late 2010, when then Senator Russ Feingold, was literally battling for his Senate career and perhaps political career as well. So that is a little disappointing for me, because I would’ve liked of seen Laura Flanders interview Senator Feingold today. Now that he’s been out of Congress for over four years now and looking at other career options for the future, like running for president. Where I think he would make a hell of a Progressive, or Liberal presidential candidate. That could raise a lot of money online simply by communicating to younger Americans. And along with Martin O’Malley, I would definitely look at a Feingold for president campaign. As liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a little profile of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Who you can definitely tell he’s from Wisconsin from how he speaks. Today’s so-called Conservatives love to talk about how fiscally conservative they are. And yet its Liberal Democrat Russ Feingold who consistently didn’t bring pork back to Wisconsin when he was in the Senate. Because he didn’t think those projects had real economic value to his state and saw them as fiscally irresponsible. Who was a true budget hawk on the Senate Budget Committee. Who consistently voted to have more sunlight in the Federal budget. And not just defense, but the budget as a whole. And part of that was voting against pork-barrel projects in Congress, even if they went to Wisconsin.

So-called Conservatives today, like to talk about how much they believe in individual freedom. And yet its just the last five years, or so that they started speaking out against the Patriot Act and government spying, thanks to the Tea Party. Senator Feingold, voted against the 2001 Patriot Act, that gave big government those powers over individuals lives. He also voted against the 2003 Iraq War. He’s a Democrat who is about as anti-establishment as they come. He’s someone who won’t go along to get along. That if there is a debate and even fight worth having and that should be had, he’ll do it and worry about the consequences of his own career later on. Unlike today’s establishment career politicians, that seem to be more interested in getting reelected and their next career move, more than anything else.

And because Senator Feingold was so anti-establishment, he wasn’t very popular in the Senate, at least in the Democratic Caucus. Because he wouldn’t vote for things, or against simply because the Democratic Leader needed his vote. And is someone who will vote against big government policies that violate our civil liberties, even if that means he may look soft on terror. And vote against endless war authorizations, even if that means he looks soft on defense. If they give the President a blank check when it comes to war-making and leaving Congress in the dark and not knowing what the executive is doing when it comes to national security.

Not saying that Russ Feingold will be our next President, but Hillary Clinton needs to know that she’s running for President in the Democratic Party. And if she wants to run as a mushy-middle centrist independent, who never takes any tough stances on key issues that come with political risks, then maybe the Democratic Party is not the right party for her and she should run as an Independent. Russ Feingold, would force Hillary to take real positions on the key issues that the country faces and that Democrats care about. Like civil liberties, war authorization, economic and job growth, expanding the middle class, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, War on Drugs and I could go down the line. And would make a great presidential candidate.

Posted in Laura Flanders, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- ‘Senator Rand Paul Discusses Individualism, Freedom & National Security’

Posted on June 10, 2015 by Rik Schneider
U.S. Senator Rand Paul

Source:Hoover Institution– U.S. Senator Rand Paul: Republican, Kentucky.

“This week on Uncommon Knowledge, Senator Rand Paul discusses his political ideas, ideals, and philosophies, noting that “we’re all born with an instinct towards individualism.” He gives his insights into dealing with immigration, unemployment, foreign policy, national security, taxes, personal responsibility, and many other issues. Senator Paul’s unique perspective and solutions could be a starting point for getting the United States back on track.”

From the Hoover Institution

I don’t agree with Senator Rand Paul on everything, obviously, but he represents exactly what the Republican Party needs more of. Republicans, who can speak beyond the current Republican base. Anglo-Southern Protestant men, generally speaking, who look at America from a 1950s perspective.

Rand Paul is someone who can speak to young Americans, who don’t want big government into their homes, but don’t want, or certainly not a fan of having big government in their wallets as well. Americans, who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want a big government trying to manage their personal, or economic affairs for them.

Senator Paul, can even speak to Independents, who do believe in the American safety net. Our economic social insurance system for people who fall on hard times and have that economic security in their senior years as well. Because what Senator Paul says, is that he’s not interested in abolishing Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other programs. But Paul says, is that those programs should truly be for people who need them.

Senator Paul believes that all Americans should try to do as much for themselves as they possibly can, including working and finishing their education. And that these programs should be run close to home. Instead of the Federal Government trying to run everything.

Rand Paul, can get classical Libertarians behind him when it comes to issues like personal and economic freedom and keeping big government out of people’s lives.

He can speak to Conservative Libertarians on all issues in and outside of the Tea Party.

And he can speak to Independents and young voters and even young Democrats who again don’t want a big government trying to do everything for them. But don’t want government to go away either. Do for us what we can’t do for ourselves. Help people in need help themselves. And protect the country predators who would hurt us. And he might be the only national Republican who can speak to all of these groups right now.

Posted in Originals, Uncommon Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Salon: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Crackpot

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Bernie Sanders
Salon

It depends on what you mean by progressive, to sort of paraphrase what Bill Moyers said about, “it depends on what you mean by left-wing.” If you mean left-wing is somehow out of the political mainstream in America, well again how left are you talking about? Center-Left, Far-Left, somewhere in between? If you mean by Progressive, that the job of government is not to manage the lives of everyone and take care of everyone. But instead have a healthy social insurance system that people can use when they need it and have enough money when they retire and guaranteed health insurance, properly regulate the private sector, but not try to run and tax it to the point, that government essentially owns it, then yeah, that’s pretty progressive and very mainstream. Center-Left American politics.

But, Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, is exactly that. And yes, Socialists are considered mainstream in anywhere in Scandinavia and Britain and France as well. But those countries are very different from America ideologically and even Canada and Germany as well. Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were all supporters of the American economic system. They didn’t put it down, or say America should be more like this country, or that country.

TR, FDR, Truman and LBJ, liked the American private enterprise capitalist model. But also understood that in an economy with a very large private sector, you’re going to have winners and losers. As well as predators who make money from hurting the innocent. And that you needed a government to help people who fall down in the private enterprise system. As well as a regulator to punish and prevent predatory behavior. This right here is the American progressive economic model. Doesn’t sound like Scandinavia, where you have an unitarian national government essentially responsible for the well-being and economic welfare of the entire country.

Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for, simply for his candor and honesty and even a few issues we agree on, like infrastructure investment, says America should look at Sweden and we should become more like them. If ever Senator Sanders became President Sanders, would move America last the social insurance safety net model, in a private enterprise system. And create a superstate, where the Federal Government would assume the responsibility and take over for the states and individuals when it comes to our well-being. He wouldn’t nationalize the economy, but nationalize certain functions of the economy that he doesn’t believe should be left for private companies and individuals. And tax and regulate other companies to the point that would become essentially public utilities and have to have the country’s best interest at heart.

The Progressive Democrat, the Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as Franklin and Harry Truman’s and LBJ’s, aren’t extreme. Center-Left and on the Left, but not extreme. When you move further Left, you get to the Socialists. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and move further left and you’re looking at the Marxists and other statists on the Left. And they represent the Far-Left in America, even if they are as mainstream in Scandinavia, as Liberals and Conservatives are in America. Bill Moyers, is right in the sense that progressivism isn’t extreme in America. But democratic socialism, when you’re talking about a superstate there to take care of everyone and meet everyone’s basic necessities in life, is pretty Far-Left, at least in America.

Posted in Bernie Sanders, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: ‘Why Now’s The Time To Step Up & Fight Against The Drug War’

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The Weed Blog

Congress, the last two weeks has debated the defense authorization bill. The House, is close to passing their bill and the Senate is debating their bill this week and voting on amendments. Both chambers and parties in Congress would also like to end sequestration, in the defense budget and broader Federal budget. I mention these things, because there are better ways to not only pay for our national priorities, while at the same time cutting our deficit and national debt. Instead of fighting bogus so-called wars like the War on Drugs, use that money to, gee, I don’t know, fight terrorists. You know, actual threats to the country and end the War on Drugs.

Stop sending Americans to prison for simply possessing or using illegal narcotics. Legalize and regulate marijuana as if it were alcohol, since pot possesses similar side-effects and challenges to the country. Not legalize cocaine, heroin and meth. I’m not a Libertarian, which might seem surprising, to anyone familiar with my blogging. But decriminalize it in the sense that we stop sending people to prison for using, or possessing it. Instead fine them for possession based on how much they have on them. And send addicts and users to halfway houses and drug rehab, at their expense.

The War on Drugs, is a tragic failure, that never had to happen. Its costs us trillions of dollars that otherwise could’ve been spent on infrastructure, real law enforcement issues, strengthening the defenses of the country and I could go on. And while the economy is still fairly weak, with a deficit and high national debt and millions of Americans still unemployed, we need to be much smarter in how we spend our national resources. And invest in things that work and free up those resources by stop investing in things that don’t work. Like the failed War on Drugs.

Posted in Originals, War on Drugs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Slate Magazine: Josh Voorhees: Lincoln Chafee Campaign Plan: Attack Hillary Clinton On Her 2002 Iraq War Vote

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Lincoln ChafeeSource:Slate Magazine

Then Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Iraq War vote, is just one example of why the Democratic frontrunner for president is not a lock, or slam dunk to win the Democratic nomination. That vote of hers back then when Congress was debating whether or not to give President Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq, is just one example of why she didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2008. And seven years later that vote looks even worst. We’re still there, Iraq is still not able to defend and take care of themselves. ISIS, which was always there, but under different names, now occupies parts of Iraq.

Commander-in-Chief, is the number one responsibility and job of the President of the United States. The President, never gets a break from that and their judgement when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues is always tested. And when you’re on the record as being wrong about perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder, perhaps since Vietnam, that is going to hurt you. Because it goes to your judgement and goes to your judgement and knowledge about the biggest role that a President, or presidential candidate will ever have. Your judgement and knowledge when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief as President of the United States.

Lincoln Chaffee, has his own issues running for President as a Democrat himself. Being a former Republican, is just one example of that. But he can say when Congress debated and voted on the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq, he voted the right way. Which was no, as a Senator and he can also say that he was the only Senate Republican to vote no on the Iraq War. Instead of being in a position where he was for the Iraq War when he was a Republican. And now that he’s a Democrat, he’s against it.

We’ll never know the answer to this obviously, but had then Senator Clinton showed some real leadership back in 2002 and said, “we’re simply not ready to go to war in Iraq and we need further study. And Congress needs further information before it makes this decision.” And decided to vote no and had taken Barack Obama seriously in 2007 and bothered to of campaign in Iowa, instead of assuming she would automatically win it, she probably not only wins the Democratic nomination for president, but gets elected president in 2008 as well. But what you do with the ball when it is in your court is the test of leadership in politics and government. How you make the calls and what you decide to do. And when of her Iraq War vote, she didn’t make a very good decision. And it could come back to hurt her again.

Posted in Originals, Slate Video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Young Turks: John Iadarola- ‘Welfare Fraud in Maine? Investigation by Gov. Paul LePage (R)’

Posted on June 8, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Paul LePage Source:Eagle Forum– Governor Paul LePage (Republican, Maine)

“On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse, but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions.

The data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars, sports bars, and strip clubs made with EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards loaded with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare) and food stamp benefits between January 1, 2011 and November 15, 2013. The state doesn’t track what was actually purchased, and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations. Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month, or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame, as the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News, they only make up “about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals,” the paper calculates.”

_ - 2021-05-05T162334.703

Source:The Young Turks– Governor Paul LePage (Republican, Maine)

From The Young Turks

I have no problem with requiring anyone who receives public assistance to have to look for work, take jobs they’re qualified for and even finish and further their education while they’re receiving taxpayer assistance to pay their bills.

America is not Sweden, obviously. We’re a much more diverse country: politically, culturally, ethnically, racially, national character. A much larger country and everything else. Sweden, does a lot of things well, but America is a country where you’re supposed to do as much for yourself as possible. And then government can help you out when and if you come up short.

But America is not a country where you can be expected to not only not work, but not even look for work. Even if you didn’t finish high school and decided to have kids before you were ready to raise them. Now, we’ll help you when you need it in order to get by and won’t force you to go without.

But you can’t just take that assistance and sit at home and say:“I don’t have an education and I can’t get a good job. I have this public assistance coming in for me and my family. Plus private charity, so I don’t need to look for work.” Public assistance should instead be seen as a public investment in human capital.

Public assistance should used to help people who are down help themselves get themselves up and living in some type of freedom. Where they’re able to take care of themselves and their kids on their own. Which does several positive things and helps the economy in several ways. People in need get the assistance that they need and spend that money which goes right into the economy. But they’re also finishing their education, they’re getting themselves a good job, a good home and now have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families. Which means fewer people on public assistance and more Americans in the middle class and even doing better.

Posted in Originals, TYT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

American Thinker: Paul Kengor: ‘From Communists to Progressives, The Left’s Takedown of Family and Marriage’

Posted on June 7, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Paul Kengor

Source:Amazon– Paul Kengor’s book, about The Left in America.

“As the Supreme Court considers rendering unto itself the right to redefine marriage — that is, to arrogate to itself something heretofore reserved to the laws of nature and nature’s God — it’s a good time to have something that liberals always insist we have: a conversation. And given liberals’ constant calls for “tolerance” and “diversity,” they ought to be willing to sit back and join us in a civil, healthy dialogue.”

Source: American Thinker

“Professor Paul Kengor, author of the sensational book, Dupes, speaks on how communists have manipulated progressives and why Barack Obama’s relationship with Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis is so important. Kengor credits America’s Survival, Inc. for telling the truth about Obama’s communist mentor and obtaining Davis’s 600-page FBI file.”

Paul Kengor (1 of 3)_mp4

Source:USA Survival– Paul Kengor, at the National Press Club in Washington.

From USA Survival

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law even, does it say the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason why states started passing same-sex marriage bans in the last ten years or so, as some other states legalized same-sex marriage, because they didn’t have a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Until the 1960s, women were supposed to stay at home and not work outside of the house and raise her kids. While the husband/father worked and paid the bills. That was how parenthood was looked at and unofficially defined. Man works and pays the bills. Woman stays home and raises the family. That was the cultural definitions of the roles for parents in America, up until the mid or late 1960s.

But nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law did it say that was how it was supposed to be by law. Back then, men assumed they would be working and getting married and having kids with that woman. And working to pay the bills so their kids could have a better life. As their wife stayed home and raised their kids.

My point is, that just because something has been done for a very long time and has become the societal norm, doesn’t mean that is how it should always be. And that people from different generation’s and era’s can adapt to meet the challenges of their era’s and live accordingly. This is just the main difference between a Liberal such as myself and a Religious-Conservative.

The Liberal believes the individual should be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. The Religious-Conservative, or the Traditional Values Conservative, believes: “This is how things are done and this is how they’ve always been done. And when you move away from that, you’re the morality and character of the country.”

It’s just until the last thirty-years or so that gays male and female felt the freedom to be who they are in public and private. And they’ve always only represented at best 5-10% of the American population and back then probably less than that, because so many gays lived in the closet and weren’t counted as a result. So the idea of same-sex marriage for gays was simply not on the map. Especially since the idea of homosexuality seem weird and even immoral to so many Americans.

But as a country moves along and is exposed to people other than themselves and gets to learn about other people than themselves, they become more tolerant. And learn that people of other backgrounds are people just like them. In the sense that they want and believe in similar things, but perhaps look, talk and act differently. But aren’t good, or bad simply because of who they are.

America, has become that true liberal democracy for all Americans. Where we all now feel and have the freedom to be ourselves. And not looked down upon, or punished by law simply because of who we are. So now homosexuality is not only considered not that big of a deal in the sense of that person is not good or bad, simply because they are gay. And if they’re not hurting anyone, so what when it comes to who they’re attracted to and how they live their lives. Which is now has become sort of the consensus attitude about gays in America. “And if they want to get married, by all means. Their marriage doesn’t affect my marriage.” Which has become the majority position when it comes to same-sex marriage in America.

Posted in American Thinker, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment