The New Yorker: William Brennan: 'The Night Bernie Sanders Was President'

Source:The New Yorker- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) "The President Sanders Film Festival, in Williamsburg, was for movies that imagined a world in which Bernie won. But the event didn’t quite turn out that way.Photograph by Ralph Freso / Getty." Talking about this photo about Senator Bernie Sanders.

"On a recent evening, about two dozen Bernie Sanders supporters and assorted bons vivants crammed into the World Money Gallery, a boxcar-size events space on Montrose Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The occasion was the President Sanders Film Festival, at which four films would be shown. The gallery’s walls were decorated with glittery paintings of Sanders. “Better With Bernie—Baruch Hashem,” one read. Red and blue balloons floated at the ceiling, election-party-style; above the drinks table hung a large banner advertising “Bernie Sandwiches.” Amanda Mercado and Zachary Darvish, the festival’s organizers, stood beneath it, greeting people as they arrived. When attendees crossed the threshold, Mercado explained, they were stepping into an alternate universe, “where Bernie Sanders is President of the United States.”

From The New Yorker 

"Best buds! Don't miss The President Show, every Saturday night at 11pm on Comedy Central." 

Source:Comedy Central- Real Donald Trump? LOL

From Comedy Central

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana: cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. 

Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. 

I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say: "Capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes. 

The reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. 

Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like: "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like: "Under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2: one job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. 

And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders, no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

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

John Birch Society: John F. McManus: 'Hugh Hefner and Moral Decline'

Source: John Birch Society- Playboy Hugh Hefner: known as The Devil to the Christian Right and Far-Left in America.

Source:The Daily Review 

“John Adams, our nation’s second president, famously stated the need for something beyond the Constitution to preserve the American dream. He insisted: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Approximately one and a half centuries later, Founder Robert Welch of The John Birch Society warned, “War always results in more government and moral decline.” Both stressed the importance of morality and, as history shows, they were hardly alone in doing so.” 

From The John Birch Society

"Hugh Hefner and a Moral and Religious People"

Source:Scott Bradley- on Playboy Hugh Hefner.

From Scott Bradley

Similar to Hugh Hefner like Ayn Rand, is an example of why the Far-Left and Far-Right in America are like an arguing fighting married couple who you would think are bitter enemies out the door headed for divorce when you see them, but who actually love each other. Similar to Al and Peggy Bundy, from the great sitcom Married With Children. Or Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, from the great movie Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. The Far-Right and Far-Left have both Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner in common, as far as people they both not just oppose, but hate.

Hugh Hefner represents what the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and the Socialist-Left and in some cases now Communist-Left, hate about about America which is individualism and personal freedom. The ability for one to pick their own lot in life and live with their own decisions. Chart their own course in life and live the way they choose, not how Big Government decides for them, because they believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And that free adults are essentially children and mental patients, without the knowledge and judgment to make their own decisions in life.

I mean, H\ugh Hefner created Playboy Magazine. He didn’t create the lifestyle, but he made it mainstream, along with the Baby Boom Generation and the 1960s. Pre-Hefner and Playboy, America was still the 1950s Father Knows Best, honey, I’m home! America! Where Dad of course worked and where Mom stayed home. Women of course were allowed to work in America, but could be denied employment simply because of their gender, or lose their husband if they choose to enter the outside workforce.

Thanks to Hefner and others, in the 196os Americans finally saw the memo that America is about freedom and the individual. That Americans can actually make their own decisions in life and not have to live in Big Bother’s basement anymore and go out in the world and decide for themselves how to live and what the American Dream means for them.

That men didn’t necessarily have to get married, nor did women. That men and women didn’t even have to get married in order to have kids. That they could actually do those things together without getting married. Even if the Christian-Right labeled their kids as bastards. That women could build careers for them and then perhaps later on if they met the right man and wanted to, they could settle down and have kids. Instead of setting out to get married and have kids and soon as they’re out of college.

Not saying I approve of Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle and that lifestyle isn’t for men. But what’s great about America along with our diversity and equal rights and what actually makes America exceptional is our individualism. The right for free adults to be themselves. That even porn freaks and men who can’t get it up in a traditional way and fine just one beautiful sexy woman boring, have a place in America.

And of course the Far-Left hates Hefner not just because of his individualism and the personal freedom that millions of men and women in America finally felt that they had, but they believed Hefner was an exploiter of women because of the pornography that his magazine represented and even produced. Apparently unaware that American women actually have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get involved, or in bed even with someone like Hefner and pose for playboy and other pornographic publications, or decide not to. I guess the Far-Left as much as they claim to be champions of feminism, apparently see American women actually as stupid and not able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy, represent choice in America. The freedom for people to choose their own course and life and make their own choices. You don’t like pornography, don’t associate with it and keep your kids away from it. Freedom and responsibility, instead of Big Government making these very personal decisions for everyone else. Similar to guns in America, you don’t prosecute people for having guns, but shooting innocent people with those guns. Well similar to pornography and the playboy lifestyle, you don’t prosecute people simply for living a non-traditional lifestyle. You prosecute people when they hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Rape being and sexual assault, being excellent examples.

And of course the Christian-Right would argue that Americans have a right to self-defense under the 2nd Amendment. And I agree with that . And they would also argue we don’t have a right to pornography and to live our own lifestyles as we choose. Well, we do have the First Amendment which covers free speech and expression, free press. And we also have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as property rights under the Fifth Amendments. All three of these amendments cover a lot of ground and give Americans a lot of freedom to make their own personal decisions in life. And with that freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. Individualism, personal freedom, and responsibility, is what I believe Hugh Hefner represents.

TruthDig: Robert Scheer- Interviewing Norman Lear: 'Bleeding Heart Conservative'

Source:TruthDig- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

"In the second installment of a two-part interview on KCRW’s “Scheer Intelligence,” television icon Norman Lear shares his political views with host and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer."

From TruthDig

"TYT Politics Reporter Nomiki Kons at Twitter spoke with legendary television writer and producer Norman Lear about Trump's America, where the Democratic Party lost its way, the NFL protests and more."

Source:Rebel HQ- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

From Rebel HQ

As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.

But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.

 I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn't be put in prison, even if they're violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn't fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.

Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, "if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won't bomb all of Florida and we'll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won't bomb Georgia as well."

There's nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don't have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don't have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.

I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he's a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.  Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.

Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party's are in control of the House and Senate.

But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear's conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore's politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore's politics aren't about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Norman Lear's writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) that I don't believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.

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

You can also see this post on The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

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

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky: 'Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever'

Source: Vanity Fair- Former Clinton White House intern and President Bill Clinton's girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

"In a series of candid conversations, two decades after she was introduced to the world by Matt Drudge, Lewinsky recalls how 1990s culture, hardball politics, and the fledgling World Wide Web forever altered her life—and American political history. This piece has been adapted from The Naughty Nineties, published by Twelve."

From Vanity Fair

"In 1998, says Monica Lewinsky, “I was Patient Zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously.” Today, the kind of online public shaming she went through has become a constant. In a brave talk, she takes a look at our “culture of humiliation,” in which online shame equals dollar signs — and demands a different way."

Source:TED- Monica Lewinski, speaking to TED.

From TED

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy'

Source:Reason Magazine- The great comedian and free speech defender Mel Brooks. 

"Legendary filmmaker Mel Brooks unloaded on political correctness yesterday, blaming P.C. pressures for undermining comedians' abilities to perform social satire.

"We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy," he said on BBC Radio."

From Reason Magazine

"Mel Brooks, recently said in an interview that "political correctness" will be the “death of comedy.” Brooks, best known for comedies "Blazing Saddles," "Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” and “The Producers,” sat down with BBC4 recently to talk about his work. He said, “We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy. It’s not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks." Regarding the portrayal of racial prejudice in his film “Blazing Saddles" from 1974, the director said, “Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it." Brooks is currently developing “Young Frankenstein” into a West End stage show. Red State and Wochit."

From Wochit Entertainment

Source: Wochit Entertainment- The great comedian and free speech defender Mel Brooks. 

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Constitution Daily: 'Looking Back: George Carlin & The U.S. Supreme Court'

Source:National Constitution Center- The great comedian George Carlin.

"On July 3, 1978, the Supreme Court issued its historic verdict in the George Carlin “seven dirty words” case, a decision that still holds sway over the use of indecent and obscene language on television, and in a new era of mass communications.

George_Carlin

Carlin himself wasn’t involved directly in the case, which was called Federal Communications Commission V. Pacifica Foundation. He had already won a legal verdict in an unrelated case several years prior to the FCC decision when a judge threw out his arrest in for performing the comedy routine at a Milwaukee summer festival.

It was a New York radio station owned by the Pacifica Foundation that was in hot water with the FCC for playing a recording of Carlin’s “Filthy Words" monologue on October 30, 1973, at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. The broadcast was heard by John H. Douglas, who said he heard the words while driving with his young son in a car. Douglas then complained to the FCC, although the case wasn’t decided until almost five years later. FCC ended in a 5-4 split among the Justices, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority decision.

Prior to the case, the FCC had warned Pacifica that the language in Carlin’s routine was indecent and prohibited by FCC statutes. The FCC didn’t fine Pacifica, but instead issued an order that threatened to take into account any complaints when Pacifica next sought to renew its broadcast license.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the decision in 1977 by a 2-1 margin, with each judge writing separate opinions. Judge Tamm said that the FCC’s order represented censorship.Chief Judge Bazelon said the FCC’s order “must be narrowly construed to cover only language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment.”

But Judge Leventhal argued the FCC correctly concluded that the content was indecent because it was broadcast during the daytime and the FCC had a legitimate interest in protecting children from hearing such indecent content.

Despite the humor in Carlin’s monologue, the Court was faced with a very serious question: Did the First Amendment deny the federal government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language under any circumstances?

Justice Stevens agreed with Judge Leventhal from the District of Columbia appeals court.

“We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems,” Justice Stevens said. He stated that because “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans” and “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children,” the FCC had the right to impose an order on the radio station warning it about the consequences of the broadcast.

The FCC had the right to treat indecent speech as a nuisance, in this one instance, because the Court said that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a broadcast of words dealing with sex and execration.

Stevens then referenced a Court decision from 1926 and a quote from Justice George Sutherland: "Nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard."

The decision officially gave the FCC the ability to impose penalties on broadcasters who presented obscene, indecent, or profane language outside of certain time periods or in certain cases. It also limited the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.

Justice William Brennan wrote the dissent. “I find the Court's misapplication of fundamental First Amendment principles so patent, and its attempt to impose its notions of propriety on the whole of the American people so misguided, that I am unable to remain silent.”

“The Court's decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspective, it really is: another of the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking,” he added.

In 2012, the Court had a chance to revisit the Pacifica decision when it considered three incidents where the FCC wanted to punish Fox and ABC for what it deemed as offensive content. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision ruled against the FCC, but for procedural reasons. Kennedy saw no need to revisit the Pacifica decision.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while concurring with Kennedy’s overall opinion, stated her objections to the FCC case ruling. “In my view, the Court’s decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation was wrong when it issued. Time, technological advances, and the Commission’s untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration,” she said.

As for Carlin, he said in his 2009 autobiography, “FCC vs Pacifica has become a standard case to teach in communications classes and many law schools. I take perverse pride in that. I’m actually a footnote to the judicial history of America.”

Scott Bomboy is editor in chief of the National Constitution Center." 

Source:Constitution Daily 

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words" 

Source:Foundation Interviews- Comedian George Carlin, talking about his seven dirty words.

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words."

From Foundation Interviews

The blog writes a lot about political correctness and fascism, because we write a lot about comedy and write comedy ourselves and without free speech which is what political correctness and fascism tries to restrict (obviously, duh, you don't say!) there would't be any comedy and even political satire. Which is why I'm always amused if not confused when so-called left-wing comedians and other entertainers make calls for political correctness because they think some material is offensive.

Because without free speech there wouldn't be any comedy. I mean, if political correctness ran this country instead of the First Amendment, comedians wouldn't be able to crack jokes about anybody. Especially the people who deserve to be made fun of. Like our politicians, just to use as an example. Entertainers attacking free speech is very ironic. Because speech is what fuels comedy, as well as self-awareness and what's going on around you in life. Even comedians have stood up for political correctness against free speech, like Michael Moore and others. Even John Oliver, Stephanie Miller, John Fugelsang, would be other examples.

A comedian attacking free speech, is like a race car driver saying oil and gas are bad for the environment and therefor should be outlawed. Oil and gas literally fuel that race car driver's career. Without it, he might be flipping burgers or selling lemonade. Or a pro football player saying football is too violent and therefor tackling should be outlawed. Who would go watch professional flag football? As the great comedian Mel Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy because comedians are worried about offending oversensitive tight asses, who think they're the only perfect human beings on the face of the Earth who don't deserve to be made fun of. Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy. The second part is my line.

George Carlin is not the first victim of political correctness when it comes to comedy. You could argue at least that Lenny Bruce back in the 1950s and 60s has that uthonorable title. But George and Lenny, are from the same generation. Lenny would literally go on stage using cuss words as part of his act and I'm not talking about hell or damn, but he would talk about sex and talk about how people would have sex with each other and put it bluntly. And then would literally be arrested on stage for using foul language. George has  a similar but different story.

George would go on stage and literally use words like shit, fuck, mother fucker, mother fucking fucking, and others and these were part of the so-called seven dirty words that comedians weren't supposed to use in Phyllis Schlafly's 1950s America, where you weren't even allowed to say God, Jesus, and hell, at least not on TV.

Liberal democracy which has a practically guaranteed right for free speech in America under are First Amendment. The only exceptions having to do with falsely libeling, inciting violence, or harassment, like leaving obscene message on someone's voice mail, to use as an example. This is not the place for oversensitive tight asses who look at the mirror and only see perfection. Or have a glass jaw for an ego and can't take the smallest bit of criticism without breaking out in tears and flooding their homes from all of their perspiration. I don't know, maybe Canada is a country for people like that.

If you don't like offensive material, then don't watch it or listen to it! Only watch PBS and C-SPAN if you can't handle criticism about yourself and groups you believe have constitutional protection not to be criticized that no one else has. With liberal democracy comes a lot of individual freedom, but with that comes responsibility and the fact that you're not the only one who lives here and you have the same freedom and responsibility that everyone else has. And might from time to time hear and see things that you disapprove of. But so will everyone else. 

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

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

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

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

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: The Confederacy

Source:Last Week Tonight- John Oliver, talking about the American Confederacy.

“Confederate symbols are still celebrated despite the ugly history they symbolize. John Oliver suggests some representations of southern pride that involve less racism and more Stephen Colbert.” 

From Last Week Tonight

I believe this is an example of where Britain is very different from America. In Britain, you basically only have one government because the United Kingdom is a unitarian government with most of the governmental power in the country rests with London in England which gets to decide how the rest of the country including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and yes England which is actually a territory that is part of Britain, gets to live. Apparently too many people aren't aware of that and talk about England as if it's some independent country and talk about England as if they're talking about France or Germany.

America is very different where power is much more decentralized. We don't just have fifty states and those fifty states aren't Federal agencies. They are independent jurisdictions that are part of a nation state known as the United States and have jurisdiction over their own affairs in their state. So if Alabama wants to have confederate statues, thats their business. Even if it offends oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies that have nothing better to do with their nights like gee I don't know, studying, getting laid, and instead spend their nights protesting Halloween, Thanksgiving, and now confederate statues.

So if we were in Britain right now whether it was Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, and someone was offended by some statue, Parliament could just declare that statue offensive or the Prime Minister could just do that by herself and that statue would automatically be eliminated. Even if the people in Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, or Manchester, aren't offended by the statue themselves, at least not a majority of the people. But we're obviously not in Britain and neither is John Oliver.

If someone is offended by a statue in Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, Philadelphia, Boston, or wherever else in America, sure they could complain about it and even peacefully protest against it. But don't expect Congress to pass some law telling some city or cities that they have to remove a certain statue because it offends someone or a group of people. Perhaps especially a group of oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies, who keep local coffee houses and Red Bull in business all by themselves.

 Because Congress would be out of their jurisdiction. And don't expect the President to even comment on it. Other than maybe President Donald Trump who will say that there's nothing wrong with having confederate statues. He might complain about having statues that honor African-Americans who fought for the Union in the Civil War, but thats a different issue.

"Mind your own damn business!" Is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not an indifferent person and I see bad things that happen to people all the time that make me feel bad because some innocent person had to experience that. But unless there's something that is really bad that is going on in Maryland, especially involving the State Government and Annapolis is trying to pass some law that I really don't like, I could really care less if Alabama or any other Bible Belt state tries to honor some Confederate figure. Or tries to pass some big government law that tries to outlaw homosexuality, or gambling, to use as examples.

We have a Federal Republic and as along as the states are passing laws that are within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights. Big government laws like banning homosexuality violate the Constitution and would get thrown simply because they violate the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy. But as long as any state is within the Constitution and putting up statues and keeping older statues is certainly within the Constitution, states can honor anybody from the Confederacy that they choose too. And if people are offended by that, they can always vote with their feet (to quote to Ronald Reagan) and move to a state that is more politically correct with the times. 

You can also see this post at The Daily View, on WordPress.

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

The Hollywood Reporter: 'Beverly Hills 90210- The Teen Drama That Brought Back Sideburns Turns 27'

Source:The Hollywood Reporter- Jennie Garth & Shannen Doherty.

"Beverly Hills, 90210' debuted on October 4th, 1990. Now an iconic 90s teen drama it starred Jason Priestley, Shannen Doherty, and Luke Perry."

From The Hollywood Reporter

At risk of giving out my age, Beverly Hills 90210 takes me back 27 years to my first year in high school. I started high school during the late summer of 1990 in Bethesda, Maryland. Beverly Hills comes out almost two months later in late October that year. The kids on 90201 at least the main stars characters were a year ahead of me in high school. I was the class of 1994 in high school and they were the class of 93. So I got to see their last three years of high school and their first year of college my whole time in high school.

And thats exactly what I did, because Beverly Hills and the original Law & Order, were my favorite two shows in the 1990s, (not including Monday Night Football) at least the early and mid 1990s. Actually, add LA Law to that list, so I saw a lot of Beverly Hills and know the show very well.

Beverly Hills wasn't the first show about my Generation X: The Facts of Life from the 1980s was that show. Beverly Hills wasn't even the second show about my generation. Saved by The Bell from the late 1980s and early 90s was that. And both of those shows deserve their own articles and pieces written about them as well, because they're both very successful and important to this generation.

But Beverly Hills was an original at least in the sense that it was the first soap opera about Generation X. People who grew up and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. Who were born in the 1960s and 1970s.

Whether you want to use the official Census Bureau definition of Gen-X as 1965-79, or use a more believable figure like 1962 or even 1961, till 1979, we are the generation was that was born in the 1960s and 1970s and came of age during the 1980s and 1990s. So if you went to high school and graduated high school in the 1990s, you're probably a Gen-Xer, unless you graduated in the late 90s.

So that is what Beverly Hills was about how Gen-X kids grew up and what we went through and experienced as a generation. For all the good and bad and Beverly Hills had a lot of both. From parents of Gen-X kids falling in love again and getting remarried, to dealing with teen pregnancy and teen suicide.

It has two twins literally from Minneapolis, (ha, ha, the Minnesota Twins, get it) yes it was corny, but the Walsh Family moves from Minneapolis to the Los Angeles area settling in Beverly Hills into a new beautiful him. Jim Walsh (the husband and father) is a successful accountant and lands a new and good job in Beverly Hills and moves his family 2000 miles or so from Minneapolis to Los Angeles.

The Walsh's have two kids who are yes twins Brandon and Brenda (played by Jason Priestly and Shannen Doherty) and they are uplifted from the down to earth 1950s lifestyle of the Upper Midwest in Minnesota, where they get 6 months or more of winter every year, out to Los Angeles where they've never even heard of winter, let alone seen it and get 6 months of summer instead. So the kids especially get a real cultural shock during the first season of this show.

It gets much better and more interesting, not that the Walsh Family aren't that interesting, because the Brenda Walsh character might be the most fascinating character on the show. Either her of Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) but the people they meet and befriend in Beverly Hills and Beverly Hills High School, are all sons and daughters of LA big shots. Entertainer moguls and people who at least do business and have clients in the Hollywood industry. And they meet most if not all the stereotypes Los Angeles kids.

Kelly Taylor (played by (Jennie Garth) is the daughter of an aging actress who is an alcoholic and addicted to illegal narcotics as well. Kelly's parents of course are divorced and she rarely sees her father.

Steve Sanders (played by Ian Ziering) is the son of an actress and a Hollywood businessman. Who you think with that background would do very well at least starting out as far as never having to worry about money and where he might live. But the guy is a bit of a rebel and a constant screw up who is essentially always in trouble and looking to get into trouble. Thinking he will get away with it and always has one scheme or another, but always gets caught. We probably all grew up with guys like that.

Donna Martin (played by Tori Spelling) on the surface at least comes off as a typical Southern California blonde bimbo. But she's very cute both personally and physically and very kindhearted always looking to help others. Who is a good girl always looking to please her parents, especially her Phyllis Schlafly lookalike over-paternalistic mother who lives in and is very happy in Los Angeles, but like Phyllis Schalfly believes Hollywood is destroying her 1950s traditional America. And strongly looks down upon individualism.

Dylan McKay (played by Luke Perry) is my favorite character on the show. Luke Perry plays the son of the Hollywood investor as well as it can be played. He's essentially a good guy (at least when he's sober) but is the constant rebel who grows up until his parents literally let him ago and buy him his own house, in a hotel. Because his parents get divorced and his mother skips out on them and moves to Hawaii. Leaving her son with his father who doesn't seem to have the time to raise his son. And has him put up in a hotel and gives his son Dylan money to take care of himself. Dylan is basically a young guy with no parental guidance other than maybe Jim Walsh (the twins father) who manages his trust fund for him. Jim Walsh really is the closest thing that Dylan has to a father, or even parent on the show.

I guess I should say something about David Silver ( played by Brian Austin Green) who I guess was okay on this show, but what has he done lately? I believe Beverly Hills is really Brian Green's only real shot at making it big in Hollywood and when that dried up so did his career. David Silver is one of those guys who is actually hipper than he seems at first, who knows how to be cool, but struggles in executing it. He is one of those guys who wants to be in with what we at least called back then  the in crowd. I guess its called clicke today, but doesn't really fit in at least during the first season.

I would mention the twins but they get so much attention anyway and the fact that they moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles in the middle of high school to start their sophomore years, plus with everything that has been written about them before, gives you a pretty good idea about them. They both probably deserve their own articles about them anyway.

Beverly Hills is a good example of what life was like as teenagers (at least LA teenagers) in the early 1990s and what life was like when cell phones weren't mainstream yet and the internet was a baby. The internet comes out in the summer of 91 during the 2nd season of Beverly Hills.

Beverly Hills is also an example of what life was like for teens and young adults before coffee houses were everywhere and before social media was online. Where people actually got together physically to hang out and socialize. Because our lives weren't dominated by our iPhones and laptops. And is a great show especially for people who are interested in what life was like in the 1990s especially the early 90s and what growing was like for Generation X. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

TIME Magazine: Julia Zorthian- 'This Is The Best Way To Recover From Failure'

Source:TIME Magazine- Move on and start over.

Source:The Daily Review

"Embracing the sting of failure may not sound enjoyable — but new research shows it’s the best way to learn from mistakes.

A study in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making found that people who ruminated on their emotions about failure were likely to try harder to correct their mistakes than those who made excuses or didn’t let their failures bring them down.”

From TIME Magazine

“Embracing the sting of failure may not sound enjoyable — but new research shows it’s the best way to learn from mistakes. A study in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making found that people who ruminated on their emotions about failure were likely to try harder to correct their mistakes than those who made excuses or didn’t let their failures bring them down.”

From TIME Magazine

I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend be one, but from what I know about the medical profession (which might only be enough to fill one paragraph) is that good doctors at least don’t try to fix the problems without first performing a diagnosis. They actually take the time to see what is the medical problem with the patient before they try to fix the problem. People get wrong prescriptions because their doctors given them the wrong diagnosis and recommend a prescription that might fix another problem, but not the problem that this patient is facing. People get even sicker or see their physical conditions worsen simply because their original problem wasn’t diagnosed properly and therefor not effectively treated.

Giving someone an aspirin to deal with a broken ankle might give the patient short-term pain relief, but still leaving the ankle broken and perhaps it even gets worst because the patient believes their ankle is recovering. That would be an example of an extreme misdiagnosis. Maybe the doctor was drunk when they looked at the patent’s ankle, or perhaps examined the head by accident, before recommending aspirin for the pain. But hopefully you get the idea.

Another way to look at failures and weaknesses lets say is from the perspective of an addict. Lets use alcoholic as an example. I’m not an alcoholic either, but from what I’ve read and even seem to some extent that the only way an alcoholic can recover is first acknowledging that they have a problem that they’re indeed an alcoholic. They drink too much alcohol, get drunk too much and perhaps to the point that being drunk is a normal condition for them. Which I guess would be an extreme form of alcoholism. So my only point here is to before you try to fix a problem or personal problems that you might have, you first have to diagnose the problem and know what the problem is. Once you’ve accomplished step a, you can work to addressing the problem with a recovery plan.

Right-wing author and radio talk show host Eric Metaxas who I agree with as often as Los Angeles sees snow in August, but who was on BookTV on C-SPAN in I believe September (some of us actually have hobbies outside of realty TV and social media and like to use our brains) made a good point about mistakes and even screw ups. And he essentially said that we’re all screw ups. Thats not the question or the issue. The question and issue is what do we do about them.

Do we ignore them and not learn from history and keep repeating the same mistakes and seeing our problems get worst? “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” Or do we acknowledge them, take them in and even absorb them and memorize that feeling to the point that it feels so bad not that we don’t want to be consumed by it and let our failures run our lives, but that we know the feeling of failure so well that we don’t want to feel like that again. Not about being pessimist or overly optimistic, but being in touched with reality so we know exactly what’s going on so we know what to do about it.

John F. Kennedy is  a political hero of mine, but one of the biggest reasons why is that he always challenged Americans to think and try to improve and move forward. Challenge the status quo not necessarily because the status quo was bad itself, but that we wanted us to be as good as we possibly can be. Which is one of my broad points here is that we all make mistakes and maybe Eric Metaxas isn’t completely right here and that we’re not all screw ups. I mean, if we were we would be nation of very stupid weak people who can’t seem to get anything right.

But Metaxas is right about at least one thing that we all screw up. And then the question becomes what was the mistake exactly and then figuring out what can be done about it. Unless you killed someone, including yourself and you’re not permanently paralyzed or are hurt so badly that you’ve been given a death sentence and will die in the short-term, whatever mistake you made there is a recovery plan to fix it. Or at least learn from it and do better in the future.

I’ll just leave you with this. For almost every problem short of killing someone and permanently paralyzing yourself, there’s a solution to that problem. It then becomes once you acknowledge that you have a problem and know what the problem is. For every mistake there’s a correction. Including horrible mistakes like running your business into the ground and going bankrupt, or making horrible investments that also lead to high debt and perhaps bankruptcy.

The alcoholism example is perfect here. Once you realize you are indeed an alcoholic and have a real problem there, you then can get treatment for it and recover. People have screwed up so badly in one profession that they can’t find any more work in that profession, but recover from that and prosper working in a different field. Take former White House Counsel John Dean who was part of President Nixon’s Watergate coverup who is now a successful author and columnist. A very successful writer now even though he was disbarred as a lawyer.

Step a, is acknowledging that you have a problem.

Step b, is knowing exactly what your problem is.

Step c, is putting together a recovery plan to fix the problem.

Step d, learning from your mistakes not to get overwhelmed by them, but so you know what went wrong and not to repeat the same mistakes. And then improving yourself so you do better in the future. Not about making mistakes in life. Of course we all do and perhaps have all made a lot of mistakes. The question is what do we do about them. Do we learn from them so we can do better in the future. Or ignore them and continue to repeat our negative history.

Bob Daugherty: Mysteries & Scandals- The Blacklist & The Hollywood 10

Source:Bob Daugherty- Victor Navasky, publisher of The Nation. Speaking of Socialists: check out that publication.

“Hollywood 10 Ten Blacklist from Mysteries and Scandals”

Source:Bob Daugherty

Looking back at it The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee which was as Un-American as anything they were investigating and perhaps the most Un-American committee we've ever seen in Congress, looking back at The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the investigations that they were under simply for their ideological beliefs.

Because they were not just Socialists and some of them were simply Socialists and not Communists, but there were also Communists in this community. But they weren't being investigated for being American traitors working for Communist Russia. They were investigated for being Communists, for having communist beliefs. This was the most extreme form of political correctness that we've seen in this country, at least in the 20th Century, because this wasn't just people getting shouted down because they have what might be extreme political views, or just having political views that offend some political activist community that actually might not be extreme.

Which is today's version of political correctness that the Far-Left (talk about Communists and Socialists) uses to try to shut up and censor right-wingers who they disagree with. But this is government-sponsored state-run political correctness. That says your (meaning Communists and Socialists) First Amendment rights aren't as strong as people on the Right and Far-Right, simply because you're Communists and Socialists.

If they were the KKK, Neo-Nazis, fundamentalist theocratic Christians who believe women's place is in the home and it should even be illegal for them to work, or gays should be in jail and prison simply for being homosexual, well the argument from the fascist Far-Right would be there that they're just expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

But if you're a Socialist or Communist who believes in state-run health care and health insurance, having a state-run banking and even energy, but aren't active politically in the sense that you're running for office, or even campaigning for any Far-Left political candidates or politicians,  or have any affiliations with Communists states, well you're Un-American according to the fascist Far-Right. Who had this Leave it to Beaver 1940s and 1950s view of what it means to be a real American. Sort of the like 1940s version of the modern Tea Party today.

To put it plainly, political correctness really sucks. The only thing that was Un-American during these supposed investigations of Socialists and Communists in Hollywood, was the House Un-American Activities Committee itself. We have guaranteed free speech rights in America which means you can be on the Far-Left and believe in democratic socialism or even communism and believe that right-wing and perhaps even Center-Left political parties shouldn't even have the right to exist.

Or you can be on the Far-Right and be a Far-Right Nationalist-Tribalist who believes your culture and faction in the country including ethnicity and race are the true Americans and the only people who will standup for America. And see everyone else as threats to your state and therefor aren't deserving of the same constitutional rights as your culture and political faction. Or you can be religious theocrat who puts your religious beliefs over everything else including the U.S. Constitution and are so fundamentalist and have so much faith in your religious beliefs that you believe everything else should not only live under your cultural values, but be forced to live under them in some religious theocracy.

Just as long as the Far-Left and Far-Right aren't violently acting on their beliefs even in an attempt to defeat or eliminate the opposition in order to accomplish their political beliefs. We have a right to free speech and belief, but not a constitutional right to violence short of self-defense. Americans have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to be stupid and even be assholes. Just as long as we're not violent assholes and physically trying to hurt people simply because we disagree with them or even hate them. Our guaranteed right to free speech and beliefs the ability for every American to think for themselves is as American as anything we've ever had in this country and still have.

What's Un-American are not political beliefs whatever they are, but trying to censor those views simply because you disapprove of them or are even offended by them. If Socialists and Communists want to hold political rallies attacking America with their rhetoric and call America the real evil empire in the world and argue that we're some materialistic racist corporate state, because we allow wealth and don't expect government to manage our daily lives for us, they have the guaranteed right to make those arguments and even publish articles, book, produce documentaries. Even if their nothing but great fiction, at best.

If the KKK, Neo-Nazis, want to argue that America is going to hell because of our non-European immigration in the country and that non-European-Americans are Un-American, they have can hold peaceful political rallies, publish articles and books, produce documentaries, making those arguments. And be treated by the public with the public's free speech rights as the complete assholes that they are.

There's nothing dangerous about free speech short of people telling others that certain people should be physically harmed, or have their property attacked, be falsely libeled and accused. What's dangerous is trying to eliminate speech and thought in America simply because you disapprove of what the speaker is thinking and saying. Because the same thing can happen to you by the opposition when they don't like your politics. The American way to confront speech and politics that you disagree with is to peacefully speak out and organize against it. Make the case as far as why the opposition is wrong. Publish articles, books, produce videos, documentaries, with the best available information that you can get about why the opposition is wrong. Which is as American our great diversity and melting pot that represents the entire world that we all call America.

Reason: John Stossel & Lilly Tang Williams: '100 Years of Communist Disaster'

Source:Reason Magazine- Happy Birthday Communism, from John Stossel. 

"This year marks communism's 100th birthday. Its horrors should remind us of the value of freedom."

From Reason Magazine

China is a good example of a communist disaster as far as their economic system, until they started their privatization program about 40 years ago and moved to a more capitalist private enterprise economic system.

But China is still a communist, unitarian, one-party, state, that happens to have a private enterprise economic system, while still maintaining some state-owned enterprises. Their political system is still a one-party communist system and there’s still no free press, free speech, right to privacy, fair trial, etc, things that liberal democracies like America have.

And yet I don’t think anyone at this point would argue that the People’s Republic of China is a failed state. Just a little push back at John Stossel’s broad point here that communism has failed in China.

I’m more interested in the somewhat rebirth if not of communism, but certainly socialism and what I call Neo-Communism. Which is a very illiberal (not liberal) form of socialist-collectivism which is somewhat undemocratic, while still leaving in some democratic principles.

For example, non-socialist parties are still allowed to technically run for national office in Venezuela. The Center-Right Liberal Democrats did win control of the National Assembly there a few years ago. But then what the so-called Socialist (Neo-Communist) Maduro Government does there is say that those elections were not valid and the opposition is now a threat to the country (meaning the Maduro Government) and the Maduro Government starts their own brand new National Assembly where only members of the Socialist Party there are allowed to serve.

Which is a big reason why we’re seeing so much chaos in Venezuela there because the economy is collapsing in a country that is energy independent and yet they can’t produce enough affordable energy for most of the country. But rising inflation and interest rates, shortages of other basic necessities in life including food. Because Big Uncle Nick (meaning President Nicolas Maduro) believes his state is more capable of producing the goods and services that the Venezuelan people need better than the people themselves.And that Venezuela is a country of 25 millions morons essentially who are too stupid to manage their own affairs. And they need Big Uncle Nick and his army of Neo-Communists (his government) to take care of them for them.

Venezuela is the perfect example of a failed Neo-Communist state and disaster. Cuba would be another great example, add North Korea. Anyone seen or heard from the Soviet Union lately or seen any Soviets? Almost like they’ve disappeared from the face of the Earth.

But to bring it back home back to America where no one who isn’t an alcoholic or drug addict actually believes communism will ever takeover America and run this country. But there is a new socialist movement that has two wings in it.

One American Socialist win, is a democratic socialist wing led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, who by enlarge are both peace-loving Hippies from the 1960s who perhaps occasionally enjoy a joint every now and then who do live on cloud nine politically in the sense that they both have this warped fantasy that perhaps you could only get from smoking too much pot, that government services are free.

Democratic Socialists believe that if American taxpayers just gave up most of their income to Uncle Sam, or perhaps Uncle Bernie and his wife Aunt Jill, (assuming that we wouldn’t allow them to just take our money from us) that America would turn into some beautiful socialist utopia. With no one ever going without not enough or enjoying too much, because the U.S. Government would collect our wealth for us and then manage for us and decide for us what we need to live well.

Besides, in Bernie and Jill’s view Americans tend to be stupid anyway and aren’t capable of making our own complicated decisions anyway that you would probably need a masters degree from an Ivy League or some other great Northeastern or West Coast university to be able to manage properly.

Democratic Socialists believe that such complicated decisions like where we should get our health insurance, health care, how to invest for our retirement, where to get our childcare for our kids, who to take care of our kids when they get older, etc, basic decisions that only New York, San Francisco, and Washington yuppie intellectuals are capable of making. And therefor according to Uncle Bernie and Aunt Jill and other Socialists, should have this decision-making power over everyone else and given the power to run our lives for us.

But wait, it gets a helluva a lot worse than that. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, are the good Socialists for the most part. Other than having a hard time telling the truth about the costs and consequences of their economic policies. Its much worst than the Sanders-Stein factions of American socialism.

Move over to the American Neo-Communists the people who hate free speech so much that they’ll use their free speech rights to try to shut up people who disagree with them. Even use violent tactics and terrorism to try to shut people up. We saw this at Berkley during this winter.

The Neo-Communists are people who say they hate capitalism even though they own almost every form of new technology there is and claim they can’t live without their smartphones and iPads and other devices. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and own all of them. And yet they say they hate capitalism.

Neo-Communists are people who claim to love animals and are for animal rights and put people down for the eating cheeseburgers and other meat and call that animal cruelty as they’re wearing leather jackets. Again, hipster-leftists say they hate capitalism even though they spend most of their time when they’re not protesting against free speech, at coffee houses on their laptops and iPhones. Who claim our Founding Fathers (the original Liberal Democrats) were evil racists who created this evil American empire. As they wear t-shirts of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and support those two men who are both responsible for the murders of thousands of people. In Fidel’s case perhaps millions.

Communism will never make it to America at least as a governing philosophy where we would see some communist regime installed and running the U.S. Government. Because Americans tend to be too individualist and once we are educated, we tend to know what doesn’t work and what does work and are able and want to make our own decisions in life both personally and economically.

Besides, the examples of failed communism and failed communist states are widely known. At least outside of the Millennial Generation and once the Millennial’s finally grow up I believe they’ll come to realize that the pot fantasies that they had in their twenties and even thirties about how like totally awesome socialism and communism is, was nothing more than a social fad and an attempt to look cool with their generation.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress. 

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