The American Prospect: Julian E. Zelizer- When Progressives Were Organized

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Attachment-1-1004

Source:The American Prospect– “Progressives seeking a model for an effective Congress could learn from the nearly forgotten history of the Democratic Study Group.” From the American Prospect.

“When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, one of Speaker Newt Gingrich’s earliest moves was to end the public funding for the Democratic Study Group (DSG), a caucus of liberal Democrats that had been created in 1959. It was one of Gingrich’s shrewdest maneuvers. As Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, a staunch conservative then and now, wrote in an internal memo, “The demise of the DSG severely damages the power structure of the House Democrats.”

Roberts was right. The DSG is almost forgotten today, but its history suggests lessons for the current generation of Democrats. Since 1994, congressional liberals have failed to replicate a powerful, independent organization like the Democratic Study Group. They have been dependent on a House leadership that is sometimes but not always sympathetic to their goals. The closest thing to a DSG, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been a pale imitation of its predecessor, a fragile informal coalition that has lacked the same kind of leadership, money, publications, communications strategy, or clout. As liberals prepare for the start of the 114th Congress and hope for stronger Democratic returns in 2016, they would benefit from looking back at the history of the DSG to see just how much a vibrant and robust caucus can offer.”

From The American Prospect

“FDR introduced a record number of pieces of legislation immediately after being elected during Great Depression. FDR signed the Emergency Banking Act and the Glass-Steagall Act which prohibited the merger of commercial and investment banks in response to the 1933 bank panic. FDR also created the Civilian Conservation Corps which put 250,000 unemployed to work. FDR also signed into law new regulatory powers to the Federal Trade Commission and created the Security and Exchange Commission to regulate Wall Street. $3.3 billion dollars was appropriated to the Public Works Administration to stimulate the economy and create the largest government-owned industrial enterprise in American history — the Tennessee Valley Authority which built dams and power stations, controlled floods, and modernized agriculture and home conditions in the poverty-stricken Tennessee Valley. FDR promised to repeal prohibition in his campaign for Pres, and he did, generating new tax revenue to help pay for increase in gov spending. In June 1933 Roosevelt restored $50 million in pension payments, and Congress added another $46 million more. After the 1934 Congressional elections, which gave Roosevelt large majorities in both houses, there was a fresh surge of New Deal legislation. These measures included the Works Progress Administration which set up a national relief agency that employed 2 million people. FDR signed the National Labor Relations Act which established for the first time in American history the rights of workers to organize unions and participate in strikes. At the height of WPA employment in 1938, unemployment was down from 20.6% in 1933 to only 12.5%. Total employment during Roosevelt’s term expanded by an astonishing 18.31 million jobs! By 1944, FDR and the American people were so confident in his policies, he had the audacity to propose a Second Bill of Rights in his State Of The Union Address.”

FDR & the New Deal_ How Left-Wing Economics Saved America

Source:Right-Wing Watch– our Founding Fathers or just actors playing? You be the judge. LOL

From Right-Wing Watch

The Democratic Study Group that Julian Zelizer mentioned, was a coalition of FDR/LBJ Progressive Democrats who gave America the New Deal, Great Society and the civil rights laws of the 1960s. They created public social safety net in America. Safety net being the key here, because it is one thing that makes America very different from let’s say Scandinavia economically.

Americans don’t expect government to take care of them indefinitely, but to help us when we need it. That is why it’s called a safety net and social insurance. You collect your insurance when you need it. But you don’t use it to pay your bills for the rest of your life unless you are disabled or retired. The Progressives of that era understood that and also didn’t want Americans thinking they could just live off of government indefinitely.

Today’s so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) are much further left than Progressives of the past.. They’ve gone from Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy (real Progressives) all the way over to the Dennis Kucinich’s, Ralph Nader’s Bernie Sanders, and yes, Bob Kuttner’s of the world who expect government to take care of people in general. Instead of being there for people when they need economic assistance and empowering people who are down to get up on their own feet.

The reason why the Democratic Study Group had real clout in Congress in the 1950s and 60s is because they were mainstream in America and tended to believe in things that Americans tend to believe when it comes to the economy. Social insurance for people who need it, infrastructure and quality education for all. So everyone could live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.

The Democratic Study Group and the old The New Republic have been replaced by the New-Left (Socialists and Communists) New Republic, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthOut, and yes The American Prospect and other Far-Left social democratic publications and political activist groups. Who represent very few Americans because they tend to be on the fringe in America and need their readers and followers to give them financial contributions just to stay in business. Because they have so little in advertising revenue. I know this from personal experience being on the email list of all of these publications to see how far left the Far-Left is today.

FDR/LBJ Progressives are still around today: Senator Sherrod Brown might be their best and leading spokesperson in Congress today. But unfortunately they’re being shouted down by MSNBC and those publications that I mentioned earlier.

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

Crash Course: John Green- The Reagan Revolution

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Rik Schneider
d3f6f612-d240-4126-b2a7-23ffbee85ad4

Source: Crash Course

Source:Crash Course

The Reagan Revolution was all possible because of what Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon were able to build in the 1960s and 70s. Moving right-wing Democrats from the Midwest and South over to the Republican Party. It was sort of the final nail in the coffin to the FDR/LBJ Coalition that included Southern right-wing Democrats, to go along with Northeastern Progressives and organized labor being part of both groups. The Reagan Revolution dominated the South and Midwest, but also did well in the Northeast with people who are called Northeastern Republicans today. People who are economic Conservatives and socially moderate to classically conservative, but do not go along with the Religious-Right on social issues.

That is how a right-winger wins 40 and then forty-nine states in America. You convince the Northeast that you don’t want big government into the private lives of Americans. You convince everyone else that you truly believe in economic freedom. And that appoint people who your Far-Right loves and pretend you are with them on the issues, while actually not really doing anything for them.

Posted in Crash Course, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vox: Amanda Taub: ‘The Truth About Political Correctness is That it Doesn’t Exist’

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Political Correctness

Source:The New Democrat– Political correctness, is definitely a form of fascism.

“Political correctness, in Chait’s view, is a “system of left-wing ideological repression” that threatens the “bedrock liberal ideal” of a “free political marketplace where we can reason together as individuals.” He writes, “While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening. It is an undemocratic creed.”

From VOX

“Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness”

Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness

Source:David Gagnon– Bill Maher, on Dennis Miller Live, in 2002.

From David Gagnon

So when Rush Limbaugh calls a young woman a slut a few years ago and people on the Far-Left protest and try to get Rush fired because they believe slut is offensive and politically incorrect, that didn’t happen? Or when campus, leftists ( lets say to be nice ) try to prevent Anne Coulter from speaking at their college because of offensive remarks she’s made about minorities Latin immigrants, gays and go down the list, she’s serial offender, that didn’t happen either?

Or go up to last year and what Bill Maher who just happens to be a hard-core Atheist that the Far-Left use to love, but he has the balls to criticize Islam, the Far-Left attacks him on Twitter and other places and calls him a racist. And the leftists at Berkley try to prevent him from speaking at their state university, ( by the way ) but in Amanda Taub’s world that didn’t happen either?

Please, let’s be adults here and not debate whether or not political correctness exist or not. And at the same time not debate whether water is wet or not. And have a real debate about the merits and weakness’ of it instead and have an adult conversation.

Let’s also be real about what it is as well, even if the truth may tend to offend the supporters of it. Which is one thing that free speech is about. The right to not only express yourself, but also the right to tell the truth even if it may offend.

The fringe version of political correctness is a form of fascism: “I not only disagree with you, but find your point of view hateful and offensive to the point that you don’t have a right to speak in my world. And I’m going to do whatever I can to shut you up”. That is exactly what political correctness is when it comes from the Far-Right and elements of the Tea Party that want to define what it means to be real American. And the Far-Left that wants to shut people up who they find offensive.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Jesse Walker: What The Hell Does Politically Correct Mean?

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

“Amanda Taub’s Vox piece denying the existence of political correctness does get one thing right: The phrase political correctness “has no actual fixed or specific meaning.” What it does have, though Taub doesn’t explore this, is a history of meanings: a series of ways different people have deployed the term, often for radically different purposes. Unpack that history, and you can unpack a lot of the debates going on today.

People have been putting the words “politically” and “correct” together in various contexts for ages, but for our purposes the story begins in the middle of the 20th century, as various Marxist-Leninist sects developed a distinctive cant. One of the terms they liked to use was “politically correct,” as in “What is needed now is a politically correct, class-conscious and militant leadership, which will lead an armed struggle to abolish the whole system of exploitation of man by man in Indonesia and establish a workers state!” It was a phrase for the sort of radical who was deeply interested in establishing and enforcing the “correct line,” to borrow another term of the day. If you were the sort of radical who was not interested in establishing and enforcing the correct line, you were bound to start mocking this way of talking, and by the end of the ’60s the mockers were flinging the phrase back at the drones. In 1969, for example, when Dana Beal of the White Panther Party defended the counterculture against its critics on the straight left, he argued that freely experimenting was more important than trying “to be perfectly politically ‘correct.'” A year later, in the seminal feminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, Robin Morgan derided male editors who had “the best intentions of being politically ‘correct'” but couldn’t resist butting in with their own ideas. In the new usage, which soon superceded the old Leninist lingo pretty much entirely, “politically correct” was an unkind term for leftists who acted as though good politics were simply a matter of mastering the right jargon.”

Source:Reason

I’m not saying this is the official definition of political correctness, but this is mine that I believe others share. And by the way, I’m not a fan of political correctness, except as it relates to slurs and perhaps racial, ethnic and sexist jokes. But political correctness are terms and phrases that are considered by lets say the broader public as acceptable. And something that is not considered politically correct is considered offensive. No racial and ethnic slurs by a majority if not most Americans are generally considered offensive and politically incorrect. Only the Far-Right and Far Left approve of them. Well they approve of the slurs against people they disapprove of.

The extreme version of political correctness which is really a form of fascism, is when people criticize members of minority groups and minority groups in general. And they don’t even use bigoted language. Like with Bill Maher back in September and October criticizing Islam and certain aspects of it, accurately so I might add. And the Far-Left who use to admire Maher now viewing him as a racist for criticizing Islam even though his critique was factually based. But since Muslims are a religious, not ethnic or racial minority in the country, the Far-Left jumped on Bill Maher and called him a bigot if not racist for his critique of Islam.

I agree that people who use offensive language against members of groups or groups in general, especially when they are inaccurate and are intentionally being offensive should be looked down upon as bigots and people who aren’t very bright and everything else. But that is different from saying someone should automatically be fired or not allowed to speak simply because they say things that is offensive. Whether its Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage on the Far-Right, or Michael Moore on the Far-Left. People on the fringes in America have the same free speech rights as people in the mainstream. So when political correctness becomes fascism is when I have a real problem with it as a Liberal who loves free speech and the First Amendment.

GBPPR: The History of Political Correctness

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

The New Republic: Brian Beutler: Republican Homeland Security Spirals Out of Control

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Republic

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how Democrats lose to these Tea Party and Neoconservative Republicans in any elections outside of the Bible Belt. Congressional Republicans know that if they vote to overturn President Obama’s immigration executive order, they may pass it in the House, but probably pay a price for it in 2016. But it will die in the Senate with even some Senate Republicans not comfortable about voting for it. And Senate Democrats would block it anyway with all of their forty-six members and perhaps with some help from some Senate Republicans. And even it did somehow pass both chambers, President Obama would certainly veto it.

Which leaves Congressional Republicans with only one tool left and it is a big tool, but comes with a lot of risks and after effects if it is used. Sort of like a nuclear bomb and what they say is, “if we can’t overturn President Obama’s executive order, because we can’t either pass it ourselves and perhaps are even divided on it. So what, we’ll strip away the funding for his executive in the Homeland Security appropriations bill”. Thinking the President will have to sign it in order to fund Homeland Security, which is something the Federal Government has to do anyway.

Senate Republicans are now learning what it is like to be in the majority. That you don’t always get everything your way. Even when you control the entire Congress, both the Senate and the House. And especially when the President is from the other party. They are going to have to cave at least in the Senate because they have vulnerable members in blue states up for reelection next year. And have other things that they want to do in this Congress. Homeland Security funding runs out at the beginning of March and they don’t want to get blamed for that department and those workers getting shut down. Which they will because they decided to attach a rider to this bill about immigration. When a clean bill would’ve easily passed both the House and Senate and get signed by President Obama.

Now here’s where I agree with Senate Republicans, a small but important point. I hate the motion to proceed rule in the Senate to begin with and would simply just eliminate it. And let the Leader of the Senate bring up whatever bill and nomination he wants to that has been cleared by the appropriate committee. And then let the Senate Minority Leader block the final bill after debate has been completed and the amendment process has been completed, if he has the votes to do that. So I would’ve voted to proceed with the House bill and then proposed an amendment to strip the immigration defunding part of the bill out. And if that didn’t get a vote or wasn’t passed, then Senate Democrats should then block the bill at the end, but not at the beginning of the process.

Posted in Originals, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New York Magazine: Jonathan Chait: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

Posted on February 4, 2015 by Derik Schneider
PC

Source: Px Ken via Twitter– Kid, has a point 

Source:New York Magazine

If you are familiar with my pieces about Bill Maher and how the Far-Left attacked him over his comments on Islam back in September and October, you know I view political correctness as not just illiberal, or how I prefer to put it anti-liberal because that is what this is, you know I’m not a fan of political correctness. Because it is a form of fascism, leftist fascism sure, but the Right doesn’t have a monopoly on fascism in America or anywhere else in the world. There’s nothing liberal about trying to shut down the opposition because you disagree with them. Or they offend you, or offend people you care about.

Liberalism was built around the hard-core individual rights of Freedom of Speech and Assembly, Freedom of Movement and Freedom of Choice. Not built around a superstate that would block language that may attend to offend the superstate or offend some of the people. The Wall Street Journal late last week or earlier this week published an editorial questioning whether or not Jonathan Chait is a Liberal or not because of his stance against political correctness. I questioned his credentials as a Liberal two-years ago because of all of his big government social democratic leanings that he has expressed in The New Republic. But now seeing him question political correctness and whether it is a good thing now, gives me a new respect for him.

The way the Far-Left attacked Bill Maher who just the day before he criticized Islam on his show and saw him as one of their heroes or God’s even, (even though the Far-Left tends to be Atheist) supplies all the evidence that people who far to the Left aren’t very liberal at all. Except for perhaps when it comes to some civil liberties, even though they are pretty weak when it comes to free speech. And the way they are probably going to go after Jon Chait for the same reasons shows you that people who are that radical on the Left, aren’t very liberal at least when it comes to speech. But leftist fascists who have the goal of shutting down the political opposition.
The Majority Report: Sam Seder- On Jonathan Chait & Political Correctness

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

The Week: Opinion: Paul Brandus: The Deficit is Shrinking, But it’s Still a Huge Problem

Posted on February 4, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Congressional Democrats
The Week: Opinion: Paul Brandus: The Deficit is Shrinking, But It’s Still a Huge Problem

Ideally what you want to do with your debt and deficit outlook, is to run deficits and even big deficits when the economy is bad. And when the economy is good and in today’s case is growing well with good job growth, is to run surplus’, or at least start paying down your debt and deficits. The United States has been in deficits since 2002. So obviously we’ve run up debt ever since and the only way to start paying that down is with a balanced budget. You don’t have to have a balanced budget to have a strong economy. But your debt even if it is growing has to be manageable and not growing faster than your economy. To use as an example.

Assuming America doesn’t balanced its budget in the next 5-10 years, which I believe is likely, what we need to do is to have an economy that is as strong as possible which means growing well and producing a lot of good jobs. And during this period the country needs to be doing things that doesn’t make our short and long-term fiscal outlooks look even worst. What is called in Washington PAYGO, which means paying for things that you do as you do them. Whether it is government investments or tax cuts, you don’t borrow the money. You pay for them up front.

So if the Federal Government is doing things to create even stronger economic growth, which I believe it has to do to help avoid future fiscal crisis’, you pay for them. We need to as a country need to rebuild our country through infrastructure investment. We need to get off of foreign oil at least and long-term perhaps fossil fuels all together. To do that we need to produce our own natural resources. Natural gas, solar, wind to use as examples. And to do these things we need a national energy policy that invest in and encourages these American natural resources.

We need to reform our immigration system and we need to reform our tax code. Our poverty rate is way to high for our economy to as strong as it needs to be and to compete with the rest of the developed world. So we need to move Americans out of poverty and into economic dependence. And all of these new things are going to require additional financial resources, but we need to do them and pay for them.

The stronger your economy is, the better off you’ll be to balance your budget and start paying down your debt. Which is why economic and job growth and paying for the things that drives that should be our number one economic and fiscal priorities right now.

Posted in Fiscal Policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The American Mind: Charles Kesler- Interviewing William Voegeli: ‘Liberal Bullshit’

Posted on February 4, 2015 by Rik Schneider

LIBERAL B_S

Source:The American Mind– Hoover Institution Fellow William Voegeli.

“What’s the foundation of liberalism? William Voegeli joins Charles R. Kesler to discuss the origins of bad liberal ideas. Watch more of ‘The American Mind’ on our website:The American Mind 

From The American Mind

It took nine minutes into this interview to figure out exactly what these two guys were getting at. And I’m not sure I have, but this is the best idea that I have at what they are getting at. And after I explain that I’m going to call bullshit on Bill Voegeli.

They (Bill and Chuck) seem to be arguing that so-called Liberals believe that it doesn’t matter if problems are being solved through public assistance and wealth redistribution or not. What matters is that they care and come off as caring. And if what they are doing doesn’t work, just throw more money at poverty or whatever the problem is and that will make it seem that Liberals care even more.

To sort of paraphrase and take Chuck’s and Bill’s point that if anyone should care about whether public programs are working or not, it should be the Liberal. I would amend that and say the Socialist should care even more because they are the people who believe in public social programs the most. And you might say: “Well aren’t Liberals, Progressives and Socialists all the same people?” And if you are familiar with this blog, you know I say no. Those three labels are all different, because they are three different groups of people.

The Socialist, the tax and spender from the 1960s and 70s and even till the 1980s to a certain extent even though Ronald Reagan was successful in ending a lot of that, was the person who would argue if a social program is not working, it must be because we aren’t spending enough on that. Not because conditions have changed to make the program seem no longer adequate to addressing the concerns it was designed for. Or it was simply not designed with very well to begin with.

Remember, it was Liberal Democrats President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gores who established the reinventing government program of the 1990s. Actually it was Vice President Gore who presided over that effort. Not Conservative Republicans.

Now here is where I call bullshit on Bill and Chuck: that is how right-wingers especially hyper-partisan right-wingers want Liberals to be seen as. As people who don’t give a damn about people’s tax dollars and the money that they worked for and earn. Because supposedly Liberals believe that is the government’s especially the Federal Government’s money that they are allowing the people to have some of. That Liberals are more interested in looking like they are care about social problems and want to help people. But aren’t so much interested in actually solving the problems, but looking like they care and spending public money on them. That view of Liberals is bullshit.

One of the genius’ of President Bill Clinton is that he almost completely changed how the Democratic Party was received. When he came to office the Democratic Party was perceived as a big government tax and spend social democratic party. That was more interested in spending people’s money than actually solving problems.

Thanks to little things like deficit reduction, reinventing government, Welfare to Work and the only two balanced Federal budgets since 1969, millions of Americans moving out of poverty and the poverty rate actually coming down, Democrats and Liberals have almost completely shedded that stereotype. And only the Far-Left of the party still carries it


Posted in Originals, The American Mind | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The New Republic: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig: Catholic Upbringing Made Me a Libertarian Activist’

Posted on February 2, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Attachment-1-1215

Source:The New Republic– Libertarian porn star Belle Knox?

“Belle Knox, the enterprising Duke undergraduate who ascended to fame last year after her porn career was discovered by nosy classmates, has decided to direct her notoriety to politics. In an interview with Business Insider, Knox expressed her desire to become a libertarian political activist, having already begun work with libertarian campus groups. Knox evidently identifies failed screenwriter Ayn Rand as a personal hero, and supports the Paul dynasty, citing appreciation for both Ron and son Rand. And she attributed her libertarianism to her conservative religious upbringing.

“I grew up Catholic, so I grew up in a very, very, conservative background and that, I think, really was kind of the impetus for why I wanted to become a libertarian,” she said. “I was always being told to cover up my body and I was always being told to wait until marriage to have sex… That really made me become a libertarian and become a feminist.”

Insofar as libertarianism is opposed to almost every feature of Catholic morality, Knox has certainly picked an appropriate politics of rebellion. But Knox, who considers herself “very socially liberal, but … very economically conservative,” may find less agreement among fellow libertarians than she expects. This isn’t because Knox doesn’t have a good sense of what libertarians actually believe; it’s because libertarians themselves do not appear to have a good sense of what libertarianism actually means.”

From The New Republic

I believe in both economic freedom and personal freedom. The idea that people should have the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs. Be able to make their own decisions in life as it relates to their financial and personal lives. What they do with their own time is their own business, as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. I want taxes fairly low for everyone, at least compared with the rest of the developed world.

But I also want government there to do things for the people that we can’t do for ourselves, or do as well even in the economy.

Smart regulations to protect the innocent from predatory behavior.

Infrastructure, social insurance, but just for people who need it while they get themselves on their feet. Not a welfare state designed to take care of us for us.

Again, I believe we should have the freedom to be able to take care of ourselves. And that it is the job of government to see that we all have that. Not take care of us, but to see we all are able to live in freedom. Which is a big difference between a Liberal Democrat and a Social Democrat.

I’m not a fan of the welfare state on the Left, that’s wants government big enough to take care of everyone for them. And I’m not a fan of the nanny state on the Right. That wants certain behavior in life to be outlawed because it offends their moral and religious values and they see it as dangerous to a civilized society. Things like homosexuality, adult entertainment to use as examples.

But again, another issue I have with the Far-Left in America is that I’m not a fan of the nanny state on the Left either, that would also outlaw certain behaviors they see as dangerous, because they’re concern with our general well-being. And believe that individual choice has to be limited if not eliminated so we don’t make bad decisions with our personal lives as well. Things like what we can eat and drink, how we can communicate with each other (to use as examples) things like prohibition and political correctness, and yes pornography when it comes to militant feminists who believe they know what’s best for all women. Which is why I guess the current New Republic doesn’t like Belle Knox.

So now having see what I believe in and the values and vision that I have, do you see me as a Libertarian because I believe in both economic and personal freedom? Libertarians don’t believe in government economic regulations, or the public safety net.

Am I a Liberal because I believe in personal freedom, privacy, freedom of choice and civil liberties. And I also believe in the public safety net, infrastructure, education, empowering poor people to be able to live in freedom on their own. I would definitely say yes. But keep in mind, American Liberals today get stereotyped as European Democrats. People who would be called Social Democrats or Socialists in Europe. People who believe in the welfare state, the superstate. They want a government big enough to take care of everyone. And again today’s so-called Liberals supposedly don’t believe in freedom of choice. And see it as dangerous because they believe it means that people will make bad decisions. Today’s so-called Liberals believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state.

Keep in mind, Liberals are actually Center-Right, at least in most of the developed world. Americans are somewhere between center-left and center-right and the people who tend to decide presidential elections tend to be even closer to the center than that. Instead of being close to one of the twenty yard lines, they are between the 45 and 50.

Americans also tend to want the freedom to be able to manage their own affairs themselves, economic and personal. So if you want a government big enough to take care of everyone, you’re not center-left. Now you may be center-left in Britain, France or Sweden, but those countries are further to the Left of Americans anyway by in-large.

If you want a government that big in America, you would be Far-Left in this country and not a Liberal. At least overall, even if you may have some liberal leanings.

Posted in Originals, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dark Documentaries: True Crime With Aphrodite Jones- O.J. Simpson (2010)

Posted on February 1, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-673

Source: Dark Documentaries 

Source:Dark Documentaries

I can’t say that I’m shocked about what happened to O.J. Simpson post 1997 wrongful death civil case against him that he lost and of course he literally getting away with murder in 1995. Actually not what happened to him, but what he did to himself, but I’m certainly surprised by it.

O.J. will never get mistaken for a genius or for the twin of a genius, perhaps the evil twin of a genius. But I would have to think he was smart enough to at least have people around him who were smart enough to tell him, “look O.J., you literally just got way with murder here. Even with the 1997 judgement against you, you still have the resources to live the rest of your life fairly comfortably. Don’t blow it! And stay out of trouble and enjoy the rest of your live as a free man”. O.J. never figured that out and literally pushed his luck.

The message O.J. got was, “I just got away with murder here! I must be a God or something, lets see what else I can get away with!” Again we’re not talking about a genius here or someone who would be confused as the twin of a genius. And instead figures what the hell and starts his own criminal career around 2006 or so and is apparently broke and decides he’ll steal to support himself. Dumb narcissistic people do dumb things, because they believe they are either untouchable, or don’t deserved to be touched, or a combination of both. And what happened to O.J. is that he finally got caught in 2007. And is now doing the time in prison in Nevada that he should be doing in California for the 1994 double homicide.

Posted in Originals, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments