Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead

Source:Kickstart Atlas- Objectivist Ayn Rand, talking about individualism.

"The smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." She's right. 

From Ayn Rand 

"SPOILER ALERT: From the courtroom summation of Howard Roark in Fountainhead. A powerful presentation. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen- actor Gary Cooper, in The Fountainhead.

From Liberty Pen

I agree with Ayn Rand's point about without individualism and individual initiative people wouldn't have the resources to help others, because no one would be creating, producing and taking care of themselves. And for this reason, every successful country has at least a certain amount of greed and individualism. 

We don't tend to be a country or world of angels and tend to be motivated to do the right thing. And sometimes that means taking care of yourself. And a collectivist could say that the people who aren't able to take care of themselves the community will step in and take care of them. 

Fine, but if there at least isn't a large population of people who are individually successful and taking care of themselves like paying their bills, putting money away and enjoying life, there won't be the resources to help the people who aren't doing those things. 

There's a reason why we're all born as individuals and all separate people. Instead of being joined with others at the hip and other places on the body, legs, arms, etc. Because we're different people and our own person. At least that is how we start out in life. Some of us decide that we don't want to be ourselves and perhaps don't like ourselves that much and instead feel the need to be like other people that we respect more than ourselves. 

But we all start off in life with our own brains and the ability to think and learn and then use that knowledge to examine it and make our own decisions. These are great things to have. Diversity is a great thing whatever the situation or thing is. Whether is is race, ethnicity, religion and yes even politics. All democracies are very diverse when it comes to their politics. 

Without individualism people become clones and cult followers of whoever the latest so-called celebrity is, even if that celebrity is in jail. Or some cases become cult followers of politicians they think are like totally awesome at the time or whatever. Ron Paul from 2011-12 comes to mind real fast. Barack Obama would be another from 2007-09. Where people would digest everything those men would say and do as if they became that person themselves. 

I unfortunately have personal experience with Ron Paul cult followers on Facebook. Where I would post something there and somebody could comment on it and in many cases using a screen name like Ronny Paul or some other name that sounds like Dr. Paul's, with one of Dr. Paul's quotes. Even if the quote has nothing to do with my post. That is not what we want to be as a country a liberal democracy that should always be the freest country in the world. 

A certain cult following like that unfortunately seems to be developing for Donald Trump. One of the last people in the world who should have a cult following based on his own personal life. That is not healthy for a country that professes individual freedom, individual initiative, creativity, etc. 

We need a country of individuals who can think and learn for themselves and then apply that knowledge to become creative productive people as well. Who can bring people to themselves not as cult followers, but teach others how to be creative productive individuals as well. Who don't take everything that someone says even their American idol at face value, because they can think and reason for them self. 

We need individuals who know when their heroes are right and even wrong. Who can take the best available information and facts and imply them to make the best decisions for themselves. You can only have all the progressive social welfare programs that you can pay for. The people who pay for them are the individuals and creators who make those programs possible.

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

Liberty Pen: Ted Ralls- 'We Get The Politicians We Deserve'

Source:Liberty Pen- As the great George Carlin said: "We get the politicians that we deserve."

"CARTOON: Ted Ralls - We Get The Politicians We Deserve" 

From Liberty Pen

To sound like George Carlin, we get the politicians that we deserve. Most if not all of us have voted for someone who has been elected to public office. And for those of us who haven't who you might be able to set up a small club and hold your meetings in a bathroom. Those people probably don't bother to vote. Or vote for losers, or vote for good people in a jurisdiction that has a lot of idiots or crooks. 

So if you voted for a crook even an oil slick crook, whose fault is that? The crook who knows they are a crook and is just doing what they normally do until they're caught? Or the good person who should know better than to vote for crooks and let their dog eat their homework before they voted?

I at least would argue that voters are always responsible for who they voted for. For anyone who voted for George W. Bush twice for president and now sees him as the worst president in their lifetime, they only have themselves to blame. 

For anyone who voted for Barack Obama twice for president and now see him as some weak moderate, or even worst, you had opportunities to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Jill Stein in both elections and instead went with the establishment Democrat. Crooked politicians (as if they're any other politicians) don't get reelected over and over because they have guns to all of their constituents heads. They're not Saddam Hussein, or some Marxist who says: 'Vote for me, or go to jail, or even die.'

Crooked politicians, stay in power by buying off their constituents and taking a hell of a lot of money from groups that don't have the politician's constituents interests at heart and many times what they're protecting goes against their constituents interests. 

But the crooked politician always has to run for reelection to stay in power. And if they have a smart educated constituency they risk losing. Because someone steps up and says: 'I can beat this bastard and get the support to do it."And the crook can get voted out. But as long as voters still use: 'The dog ate my homework" excuse and don't bother to do their homework before they decide who to vote for, crooks will continue to get elected and reelected and not be held accountable for their crookedness. 

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

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

Liberty Pen: Ben Carson- 'Political Correctness'

Source:Liberty Pen- Brain surgeon Dr. Ben Carson, in search of his brain.

"Ben Carson explains the motives behind the ideology of intolerance known as political correctness."

From Liberty Pen

Presidential dreamer Dr. Ben Carson, the last few weeks has made it a point to show people how strongly he's in favor of Freedom of Speech and opposes political correctness, which is a form of fascism that comes from the Left and the Right. And has said things like: "PC is dangerous because it muffles people." This country was founded upon on Freedom of Speech, or thought and expression." Which is a great thing to say and believe and I agree with that, but saying those words aren't worth the air, or paper you used to express them if you don't believe in what you're actually saying.

But almost at the exact same time he proposes if he were to ever become president and his fantasy came to real-life, to use Federal taxpayer dollars and the U.S. Department of Education, that a lot of supposed Conservatives believe shouldn't exist in the first place, to monitor college and students for what he would call liberal bias and Un-American propaganda and speech. And threaten to strip those colleges of their Federal funding if they don't comply with his rule when it comes to speech on campus.

I'm obviously not old enough to remember the 1950s and Senator Joe McCarthy and what others in Congress were doing in the 1950s, being born in the 1970s myself. But this looks like McCarthyism in the 21st Century to me.

Political correctness and other forms of fascism, are not left or right, but wrong. Undemocratic, anti-free speech, anti-personal freedom, pro-big government and dictatorial rule. Political correctness from the Far-Left is well-known and famous. With so-called Social Justice Warriors wanting a society where minorities wouldn't have to hear any critical or offensive speech towards them. Even if the speaker's are right in what they say about minorities and minority groups.

But its just as bad if not worst coming from the Far-Right with their goals of having a country that thinks and looks at the world they way they want them to even through government force. That you comply with what they believe, or else and or else has to do with government sanctions and stripping funding.

I'm not impress with Dr. Carson at all other than his professional background and he seems like a very intelligent and likable guy. Just not when he's talking about politics and expressing political opinions. He gives the term amateur new meaning when it comes to first-time political candidates and gets stuck either with making hypocritical statements like when it comes to political correctness, or speaking about issues he apparently knows very little if anything about. Like national security, where his own staff has admitted he needs to do a lot of homework.

I see Dr. Carson as a lot more qualified being a hipster motivational speaker, or talk show host, perhaps like Tony Robbins and Dr. Phil McGraw, than actually running for, gee I don't know, the most powerful and important office in the world. Which of course is President of the United States.

If you believe in Freedom of Speech and are against political correctness, great! I and a solid majority of Americans outside of the New-Left, Millennial Generation and Christian-Right, agree with you. But again free speech is not speech that you agree with. It is also speech that you may disagree with, find offensive, sinful and even dangerous.

To say you support free speech when it comes from your side, but fascism for everyone else, is like a company CEO who says he supports capitalism for the working people, but socialism for companies and executives when the executives run business's under ground and need to be bailed out. No one in their right mind would take that person seriously.

America, moved past the 1950s officially over fifty-years ago and culturally at least since the late 1960s. Women not just work, but most people don't have a problem with that. Gays, are no longer subjected to live in prisons, mental hospitals and closets, simply for being gay.

America, is just a lot different culturally than it was fifty-years ago and has a lot more personal freedom now. Freedom that we've always had to live and think individually, but now are no longer looked down upon generally if we have different political views and different ways of living.

The Christian-Right, has never gotten over that and have been looking for ways to take us back to the 1950s ever since. And their form of political correctness fascism would be one way to accomplish that.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Big Government Like A Jealous Boyfriend'

Source:Liberty Pen- Perhaps the guy is one of Uncle Sam's nephews? LOL

"Government IS like a jealous boyfriend. Peter and Anna Smith talk about their lawsuit against President Obama and then Anthony Randazzo (Reason Foundation) explains how government promotes the false and unsound economic notion that home ownership equals happiness. From Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

Here are perfect examples of the dangers of big government: not government in general, just government that attempts to do too much. Which is try to manage people's lives for themselves and try to protect people from themselves.

Big Government is like a jealous boyfriend who hasn't gotten the memo, or letter, or phone call, or email, or text message, or v-log that Sally, (or whoever): "is so not into you" anymore, Joe. (Or whoever might has been): "like totally awesome", or whatever before. But now Joe reminds Sally of her Uncle Sam, who at times tries to take the place of her father, or even her herself. As far as what responsibilities that she has for her own life.

Big Government and Uncle Sam, sometimes twins, sees people as stupid. Well, at least Americans as stupid and I'll admit there are too many Americans who at times look like they've escaped institutions for the mentally handicapped and couldn't name their own mayor, or governor to save their lives, even if they were spotted the last name and perhaps even first name.

But people by in large are pretty bright and don't need Big Government watching them to make sure that they don't eat too many potato chips, or watch an adult movie, buy a home, talk to people they might approve of, use too much water in the shower, or whatever the case. This is not a Marxist state, government doesn't need to protect the people from themselves. But the people from predators who would hurt them.

I'm not a Libertarian and I have a real role for government and not just as it relates to criminals, terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes, that would like to attack us. I believe government does have a role to play to help people who are down get themselves back up so they to can live in freedom. But that is called limited government and limiting government to doing what we need it to do and where it can play a constructive role. Where it doesn't grow so big that it can no longer be audited. Like the Defense Department today and the Education Department several years ago.

Government should serve as a public referee and insurance system. Not as a national babysitter trying to prevent people from making mistakes with their own lives and trying to help us by sending us to the worst place possible for humans. (Which is called jail) Simply because we're involved in personally dangerous activities.

Liberty Pen: 'Donald Trump- Then and Now'

Source:Liberty Pen- The one and only Donald J. Trump. We can thank God there is only one of him. 

"Have Donald Trump’s politics really evolved or does he simply value pragmatism over principles? Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

The so-called success and popularity of Donald Trump (and no one knows especially The Donald how long it will last and only time will tell and back to Bob and the whole bit) has to do with dumb voters in America who are simply looking for someone to represent them. And at the very least take them back to a time where the country looked and acted like them. 

The Donald, who is more qualified to run for uses car salesman in chief, or narcissist in chief than Commander-in-Chief, sees a huge financial opportunity here to create his new realty show: "Who Wants Donald Trump For President?" Which should also be his campaign theme by the way. Because it would actually be accurate.

You have a group of Middle-America, or Silent Majority voters, old, dumb Anglo-Saxon, Southern/Midwestern Protestant (voters to be more accurate) who are looking for someone who talks like they do. Who doesn’t speak in terms of diversity and that diversity is one of our greatest strengths and immigration is what built America and we need make America great again, as if we’re not currently great and go down the line. 

The reason why a Donald Trump can replace a Mitt Romney as Flip Flopper in-chief, is because he’s speaking to voters who don’t bother to look at the records and careers of politicians. Because that would require reading and perhaps having a computer. What they do instead is go off the latest soundbites and speeches.

Anyone who follows and takes American politics seriously, knows that Donald Trump is not only not a politician, because he’s never held office, but if he was a politician he wouldn’t get away with perhaps half of the flip-flops he’s had in his career. 

If The Donald could only speak to Americans who take politics seriously like the real activists on both sides who bother to looks at candidates records and see if what they’re saying now matches up with what they said before, The Donald would have to run a completely different campaign. And he also couldn’t run as a Republican because of his long support for Planned Parenthood, the Clinton’s, saying Democrats do a better job of managing the economy and again go down the line.

How else can you explain someone like Donald Trump, who has been multiple choice on most of the major issues in the country, getting away with being about hundred-percent pro-choice on abortion and even in favor of Planned Parenthood, who once supported the flat tax and called Bill Clinton a good if not great president and said that single-payer is the way America should go when it comes to health care reform and these are just a few examples, getting away with changing every single position that he’s had on these issues. 

The voters The Donald speaks too don’t bother to look at the records and past policies of their candidates. Because that would require effort and work and perhaps intelligence as well. And besides, they are just soundbite voters who breathe a lot of hot air, even in Minnesota in January. 

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

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Real Life Journal- I believe that's Ali MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works.

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.