Newsweek: Katie Couric- 'Sarah Palin's: Five Biggest Gaffes'

Source:MSN- The photo says everything. 

"Former Republican nominee for Vice President Sarah Palin has made some huge gaffes during her political career. Here are the top five, including when she insisted that being able to see Russia from Alaska counted as foreign policy experience, and when she got caught reading notes off her palm."

From Newsweek

Similar to Michele Bachmann who said things like America should be less socialist like China, ( an actual Michele Bachmann quote ) it's hard to pick the five biggest gaffes that Sarah Palin has ever given. To use a sports analogy, she really is the classic case of not ready for prime time. It would be like a high baseball player even a star who gets drafted by an MLB club and is promoted to the Major Leagues the day he graduates from high school.

Source:Ranker- Bill O'Reilly, interviewing Sarah Palin in 2010 and trying to help her out 

Before Senator John McCain ( may he always rest in piece ) nominated her for Vice President when he ran for President in 2008, she was a mayor of a very small town in Alaska and Governor of Alaska for a 18 months. And before that she worked for a very small paper in Alaska. That's a huge leap to take coming from that rural, small town background into a race for the most important office not just in America, but in the world when you're talking about the President of the United States. Ten years ago, she wasn't ready for the spotlight and ten years later, she still isn't and probably no longer wants it given how quiet she's been even with her dream candidate Donald Trump ( another political reality TV star ) as President.

Source:Ranker- Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 

But if Newsweek can put together the five biggest gaffes that Sarah Palin has ever given, I can certainly comment on some of them.

Sarah Palin: "I can see Russia from my backyard."

When she said that to Katie Couric who was then the anchor of the CBS Evening News back in 2008, Katie asked her something like what makes qualified to handle foreign policy and what experience to you have there. With Governor Palin saying that she can see Russia from her backyard. Which would be like me saying I'm qualified to do home construction because I can see a lot other homes in my neighborhood. Or saying I know my next door neighbors very well, simply because  live next door to them. Governor Palin, obviously wasn't prepared for that question by her staff or she ignored their advice.

Governor Sarah Palin, getting caught looking at the palm of her hands for answers like a high school sophomore gets caught cheating on a test that he didn't study for and looked at a cheat sheet. Again, where is the preparation that could come from having a staff who at the very least is smart enough to know that their candidate needs to know what she's talking about before she gives an interview, but also know their candidate well enough to know that she actually might be dumb and immature enough to try to pull a stupid play like that.

Calling Joe Biden, who was her opponent for the Vice Presidency old in 2008, sort of speaks for itself. Especially since her running mate John McCain ( again, always rest in peace ) was not just 72 at the time, but 6 years older than Senator Biden. Perhaps Governor Palin, hadn't had the pleasure of meeting the man who appointed her to be his Vice President, before she called Senator Biden old. I doubt that, but I just thought I would throw that out.

Sarah Palin, represents to me at least the classic case of not ready for prime time when it comes to American politics. She should've never been in that position in the first place. She was the classic Hail Mary pick by a presidential candidate in John McCain ( once again, always rest in peace ) who was not just losing the election to Barack Obama, but was probably going to lose anyway and perhaps figured if he was going to lose the election he would go out with all his bullets being shot ( except for birtherism ) and nominate a VP candidate that the Far-Right of the Republican Party would approve of.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

National Review: Victor Davis Hanson- 'Did 1968 Win The Cultural War?'

Source:National Review- Grant Park in Chicago in 1968. 

"Fifty years ago this year, the ’60s revolution sought to overturn American customs, traditions, ideology, and politics.

The ’60s radicals eventually grew older, cut their hair, and joined the establishment. Most thought their revolution had fizzled out in the early 1970s without much effect, as Americans returned to “normal.” 

Read the rest at The National Review 

"The Left WON the Culture WAR: Here's Why" 

Source:Black Pigeon Speaks- talking about Tami Lahren, who they see as a victim in the Cultural War.

From Black Pigeon Speaks

Not sure if 1968 won the Cultural War, simply because I don't see how a year could win a war. Wars are won by groups of individuals generally countries through their militaries and their people that back them. 

I'm being a little coy here, but Victor Hanson's basic point being that did the people from the 1960s especially the late 60s, the young people who were a big part of that era with all of those young Baby Boomers coming of age in the 1960s and graduating high school, starting college and even graduating college in that decade, did those people and the cultural and lifestyles, political views that they represented especially the Hippies, did they win the Cultural War? I believe the obvious answer to that question is yes.

As a Gen-Xer who was born in the mid 1970s and just one generation up from the Baby Boomers, I obviously don't remember 1968, but that's only because I wasn't even born yet. If I were born even in the early 1960s perhaps I would have some memories of that time. 

So what I have to do to familiar myself with that decade is to listen to, read, and watch the people who were not only alive through that period, not only lived through that period, but were major part of it. The new cultural and lifestyle changes from that decade, all the personal freedom and individualism that came from that decade, the anti-warmovement, the women's movement, the gay movement, civil rights movement, etc. One of the advantages of history is that you can't forget it because people are always reporting on it as it happens, but then later on with books and documentaries.

There are two main factions in the 1960s cultural movement: one, being perhaps the most famous the New-Left socialist revolutionary movement that not only wanted to get America out of the Vietnam War, wanted to fundamentally change how the American economy and government worked. 

Even with the New-Left you had at least two factions: the Socialist Revolutionaries lead by groups like The Weather Underground, Students For a Democratic Society and then later in the early and mid 1970s the Symbionese Liberation Army that's famous for kidnapping San Francisco area heiress Patricia Hearst, who wanted to rob banks to take care of the poor. 

And then you had the peaceful demonstrators who were part of the anti-warmovement and were simply interested in getting America out of the Vietnam War, but not trying to overthrow the U.S. Government through violence.

The socialist revolutionary nonsense ( tis the season to be generous ) I don't have much if any respect for as someone who believes in the rule of law and only believe in using violence in self-defense and to protect the innocent. 

But the Hippies who were growing up in the 1950s and remember that era well who wanted a new life that was different from their parents and grandparents, who wanted to make their own decisions, who loved their families, but didn't want to be dominated by them and be able to live their own lives even if their parents disapprove of their lifestyles, as a Liberal myself who believes in individualism and free choice, personal freedom I have a lot of respect for that movement.

By not even 1968 but really 1965-66 and perhaps even 63-64, America was changing drastically culturally, racially, and ethnically. 

The Anglo-Saxon Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle from the 1950s was becoming a thing of the past at least in Real America even if Hollywood was still producing shows that looked like they were from 1955. Instead of the husband walking in the door every night and saying: "Honey, I'm home!" with his devoted wife staying: "Hi dear, how was your day?" having his paper and favorite drink ready for him, the woman in many cases was just getting home from work herself. Because you had these Baby Boom Hippies and lot of them women who didn't want't to be housewives and in some cases didn't want to get married or even have kids. Who instead wanted to go to college, get a degree and start their own lives and be independent with the same freedom that the men have.

The so-called Cultural War from back then and today are fought by two factions: the Christian-Right, who believe the 1950s was the golden age for America and who've been trying to get every single American into some national time machine and take us all back to that 1950s Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. 

And the New Americans ( let's call them ) who believe that Americans should be free to be Americans, who are a very diverse people racially, ethnically, religiously, and culturally who believe Americans should be free to be Americans and make their own lifestyle and cultural decisions. Even if that offends people who are a lot more conservative religiously. 

And the New Americans having been winning this Cultural War really since the 1970s at least with all the personal freedom that Americans have today. 

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

Sargon of Akkad: 'Why Do People Hate Feminism?': Feminist Fundamentalists

Source:Sargon of Akkad- A Red Scare Radical Feminist?

"Feminism is a religion and feminist activists are its missionaries."

From Sargon of Akkad

According to Merriam-Webster's definition of feminism: "Feminism is the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities." To put that even simpler: feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally as men and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender.

Thats not controversial, because probably 7-8 out ten or more Americans believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. You polled Republicans (not including the Christian-Right) and you would get a substantial majority of Americans who believe men and women should be treated equally.

It's radical or fundamentalist feminists, as Sargon of Akkad calls them or even fascist feminists who believe you're either with them and that means 100% of the time, or you're against them. You either believe that men (especially Caucasian men) are ignorant bigots and sexist pigs who struggle to tie their own shoes, or you are part of the problem. You either believe women are superior to men and should have most if not all the power in the country, or you're a sexist pig (even if your'e a woman) who hate women of all races and ethnicities.

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.

The Blaze: Mary Ramirez: 'I’m Done Apologizing For Being White, And You Should Be Too'

Source:The Blaze- looks like America to me.

"What problems are solved by raising entire generations of Americans to hate the color of their skin? 

I’ve often been told I have no right to write about race.

I’ve also been told that I pompously “think I have a right” to write about race just because I married a Mexican.

And you know what? Often I find myself second guessing nine-tenths of what I say because, undoubtedly I’ll say something that someone somewhere will scream about how I have no right to say for one simple fact:

I’m white.

Even as I sit here writing this, I’ve stopped and started at least a dozen times, thinking about the right way to put all this to mitigate the inevitable backlash.

But you know what? That’s actually the entire point." 

Source:The Blaze

I feel an accusation that I'm a racist coming in the near future, because I don't see all Caucasians as racists and bigots in general, or that we have some monopoly on racism and bigotry in general in this country. But we'll wait and see.

Just to give some of my own views about race in America, as it's called: 

It was African-American freedom fighter Rosa Parks who had the courage and was right to stand up for her own rights not as an African-American, but simply as an American citizen in refusing to give up her bus seat to a Caucasian-American, who said 'that the only race is the human race.

 Dr. Martin Luther King and his I Have a Dream speech: "I have a dream that one day my children will grow up and not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I'm paraphrasing, but that is very close. The only thing I would add to that dream is that all children in America grow up and see that dream as the new reality or the new normal. In a society like that no one is judging people by race, but by character.

When I say I don't see race, I mean I don't judge people by race. Anyone can see the racial differences between Europeans, African-Asians, North Americans and everyone else. That is not the question. The question is do we judge people by the race and ethnicity that we see, or by the individual and their character and how they present themselves in life as an individual. And not just that, but I also don't identify by race and certainly not by color. 

Not all African-Americans have black skin. Not all Caucasians have white skin and if you look at the color of white in reality like a white t-shirt, no one has that complexion anyway. Asians whether their ancestors come from Central Asia, South Asia, or the Far-East, obviously don't have yellow skin.

So if we're going to have a conversation about race in America are we going to talk about race, or is this about color? Two different things. And to say that some people have white blood, some people have black blood and some people have brown blood. the only blood I've ever seen is red. So that's not a way to talk about race either. Barack Obama doesn't have black or white blood, but only red blood. He's not black or white, but brown. He's got Irish and American-Indian ancestry on his mother's side and Kenyan blood on his father's side. He's both an African and European-American, as well as an American-Indian. He celebrates St. Patrick's Day, because he's Irish on his mother's side. 

So are we talking about race, or color, or both? And when it comes to mix-race people, well they might not have one color in their complexion, but a combination of colors. Depending on the person.

When it comes to apologizing about being Caucasian or anything else, why should anyone do that? Should everyone speak out against bigots in their racial and ethnic communities when they make ignorant statements about other ethnicities and races? Of course they should if they know what that person said is bigoted. But this idea that anyone should apologize for being how they were born regardless of how they were born, their complexion, how their hair looks and how their face is shaped, etc, of course not. 

Why should individuals apologize for how they were born? It is one thing to denounce your own bigotry and say you were wrong about that and are now sorry for it.  But it's another to apologize for how you were born. Which is something that none of us can obviously control. We aren't born bigots. That is something that people have to learn and then accept. 

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

The American Thinker: Don Feder- 'All Aboard Starship Bernie Sanders!'

Source:The Daily Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) President of Free Stuff From Government. LOL 

"The chattering class is amazed at the rise of avowed socialist Bernard Sanders, running against hyper-welfarist Hillary Clinton. But Sanders’s campaign is just the latest chapter in the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch -- from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama.

When MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the differences between a Democrat and a socialist, she changed the subject. Hillary Clinton snapped “I’m not going to get into it. You’d have to ask him [Sanders]” -- or you can check her e-mails. In a 2010 Gallup Poll, 53% of Democrats said they had a positive impression of socialism." 

From The American Thinker

Perhaps the first time ever I read a post on The American Thinker where it looked like there was some real thinking involved in the writer's piece. 

Anytime a Socialist politician running for high office and in this case not the highest office in the country, but the highest office in the world (in President of the United States) anytime that politician promises free stuff from government, ask that person how much is this free stuff going to cost you. Anyone who pays taxes in America pays for the government they receive. And in some cases we pay for the government we don't receive. If you're fortunate to never be unemployed in America, you'll never receive the Unemployment Insurance that you pay for. And that is just one example.

The weakness that Socialists in America have and why they've never caught on for the most part at least in high office, is because they're so big centralized government-centric. And again everything that government does it has to charge it's taxpayers for the cost. Or borrow the money from another country which we pay in interest relates. 

The old cliche "money doesn't grow on trees" should have been the first thing that anyone ever read when studying either economics, government, or political philosophy, especially socialism. I guess today's Millennial's who are at least technically studying economics were too busy camping out at the Apple Store the night before so they could say they were one of the first five people to buy the latest i-phone and be able to post that on Facebook and over slept that night and missed the money doesn't grow on trees economic lesson.

Millennial's, especially need to at least try to understand this. Spend one day not hyped up on Red Bull, coffee, or alcohol and focus during one government and economics lesson. Because they need to know that all of the promises that Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, now what seventeen-trillion-dollars in counting, or is it thirty-trillion-dollars, hell lets make it hundred-trillion-dollars (I have a hard time keeping up with Socialists when it comes to taxes and government) hey need to know that if for some reason Bernie were to ever become President of the United States (which might only happen if all of Hillary Clinton's voters are kidnapped, or deported by Donald Trump) that everything that Bernie is promising will come with a huge cost in taxes. Nothing free about government. 

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

The Federalist: Lewis M. Andrews: 'Political Correctness Is A Mask For Leftists Intellectual Insecurity'

Source:The Federalist- talking about political correctness.

"To legitimize itself, the Left needs to hide the truth that the central planning it loves only begets misery. So all it has remaining is trying to shut the rest of us up.

Lewis M. AndrewsBy Lewis M. Andrews

FEBRUARY 12, 2016: 2015 will undoubtedly go down as the year the Left’s efforts to impose its absolutist ideology went well beyond targeting lecturers and graduation speakers invited to colleges.

In late spring, the University of California distributed a guide to forbidden classroom phrases, including “America is the land of opportunity” and “America is a melting pot,” to faculty at each of its 10 campuses. Later in the year, George Mason University professor Jagadish Shukla and 19 others went national with a letter to President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, demanding they criminally prosecute any company or organization that denies climate change." 

From The Federalist 

"Political correctness is a direct attack on your right to free speech. " 

Source:Sargon of Akkad- talking about political correctness and free speech. Not everyday or even year that I agree with Sargon of Akkad on anything, but he's damn right here.

From Sargon of Akkad

I agree that political correctness is a mask for insecurity on the Far-Left, as well as the Far-Right. When Christian-Nationalists hear things that they view as Un-American or immoral and want stricken down and prevented from ever being heard again. 

But with the Far-Left they view some world in their Utopian dreamland where people they view as insecure and have been persecuted in the past to the point that they deserve governmental special protection. To the point that minority groups shouldn't have to even hear criticism about them even when it's true. That the only people that should be criticized are "The Man" (meaning the White man) Christian-Conservatives and even right-wingers who are minorities. And they should be portrayed simply as "White people" with dark complexions.

Who wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is swell (to paraphrase The Beaver) where everything is perfect, where people regardless of race or ethnicity, never have to hear anything negative about them, because everything is swell, they're perfect, no such thing as teenage pregnancies or poverty. But that is not the world we'll ever live in, at least in my lifetime. 

We have a large religious-right in this world, both Christian and Islamic. And to say that only Christian-Conservatives are bigots towards women and gays and leave Islamists off the hook, is denying facts that are right in front of you. 

To say that only Anglo-Saxon redneck jokes are acceptable, but if you make fun of African-American ghetto people and impersonate people from that community, you're a bigot, but jokes and impressions of rednecks are perfectly acceptable, is a form of bigotry.

If you believe only the Christian-Right and rednecks, are the real bigots and Christian-Nationalists in general, but Islamists who have similar positions towards gays, women, as well as ethnic and racial minorities and in some cases would go even further and are more authoritarian and would put gays to death simply for being gay, make the case. Try to make the case that only Caucasians have bigoted views. That only the Christian-Right hates gays and believes women should be subservient to men and good luck with that. Perhaps you'll win the lottery and win a million dollars, become a millionaire on Wall Street by only investing only five bucks. Never get wet in a Seattle rain storm, or ever see snow in Minnesota again, even if you live there year-round, etc. Maybe you'll just become the most blessed person in the world as well. 

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

Steven Crowder: 'MYTH BUSTED: ACTUALLY, YES, HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST LIBERAL'

Source:Quote of The Day- Socialist-Nationalist Adolf Hitler. 

"A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as "right wing," with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this "right wing" movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.

But thanks to this nifty thing called "history" in combination with "the internet," we can bust this myth once and for all. Thoroughly. Or until a leftist insists on ignoring it. Then we'll hold them down and tape their eyes open. Just kidding, that's only what a leftist would do. For those who'd rather watch this column in video form, there's one below. For those who prefer reading, yuck. But scroll down."

From Steven Crowder 

"A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,” with of course, Adolf Hitler as their leader. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, but thanks to this nifty thing called “history” in combination with “the internet,” we can bust this myth once and for all... 

Source:Steven Crowder- I normally don't compare anyone with Adolf Hitler, who isn't also evil and I don't believe Steven Crowder is evil. But one thing that Crowder has in common with Hitler, he is talks a lot about things that he doesn't know much, if anything about, like liberalism. Or he's a professional bullshit artist, who simply knows better than what he says.

From Steven Crowder

I hope Steven Crowder isn’t a professor of political history, or German history, because his students would leave his class knowing less than what they knew going in. Crowder, knows less about Socialist Liberals and socialist liberalism, then Ben Carson knows about foreign policy and Donald Trump, knows about national security and Norwegians know about NASCAR and Texas rodeos, combined. 

Adolf Hitler, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a Marxist. Nothing liberal, or democratic about the man. Socialist Liberals, believe in democracy and personal freedom, with a big welfare state when it comes to economic policy, but not a Marxist command and control government-run economy. 

This idea Crowder throws out that Hitler was an inspiration for the KKK and other Southern Anglo-Saxon racist Democrats, again, not Liberal Democrats, but right-wing, Neo-Confederate Democrats who are and would be Far-Right Republicans today.

Hyper-partisan Tea Party Republicans, seem to believe that the only way they can look good is if Democrats and people they see as Liberals look bad. So they don’t talk about communism and socialism anymore, but instead one big mother ideology that they call liberalism, that they probably made up when they were getting high in their pickup trucks in South Carolina, or some place. They may officially be against marijuana and legalization, except for themselves. 

But of course the New-Right in America always leaves out actual liberal ideas and values that most of the country including Conservatives actually support: equal rights, equality under law, tolerance, judging people individually and not as members of groups, personal freedom, economic opportunity for everyone, public infrastructure, and education, etc.

Adolf Hitler, was monster who didn’t believe in liberal values and conservative values either. Who just didn’t hate Jews, but Slavs, Gypsies and I’m sure Africans as well. Not that Europe had much of an African population back then. This idea that any of these hateful policies would be liberal, when he was completely against the actual liberal values ( that I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be like saying the Saudi Kingdom is run by Conservatives, because they have a state religion and are not just fundamentalist, but have a state religion and treat women as second-class citizens, as well as ethnic minorities in Saudi Arabia. When the fact is Conservatives not only believe in a republic, but Separation of Church and State, as well as Freedom of Religion. Which all includes all religions. 

The Tea Party, just sounds like hyper-partisan desperate liars, when they need to compare Liberals with a evil man like Adolf Hitler.

If you want to call Adolf Hitler a Liberal, don’t wine when someone on the Left who might be as stupid as you (and perhaps you could settle that in a debate) compares Ronald Reagan with a Saudi, or Iranian theocrat. Because Ron Reagan was pretty religious, at least after he bombed in Hollywood as a b-actor and got into politics instead. Which many times actually has less truth in it than Hollywood. 

If you’re going to describe someone’s politics, here’s an idea: know what their politics first and then be able to explain them. Instead of comparing saying everyone on the Left is a Liberal, or everyone on the Right is a Conservative. I realize that could cost you ratings and subscriptions from people who were passed up when brains were being passed out. But at least you could be educating people instead of contributing to the state of ignorance in America.  

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 The FreeState, on Blogger.

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

Human Events: Mark Skousen: 'If Megyn Kelly and Fox News Want to be Taken Seriously'

Source:Human Events- Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump�??s announced refusal to show up at the next in a never-ending series of televised debates raises a fundamental issue with Fox News. Is Fox News, which is airing the Jan. 28 debate and providing the moderators, serious about reporting the news and addressing the key issues of the day, or is the network just in the entertainment and celebrity business?"

From Human Events

Source:Talking Points Memo- Megyn Kelly and FOX News, debating the complexion of Santa Clause. When you know you have nothing better to talk about. 

"Megyn Kelly: 'Santa Is What He Is,' Which Is White. More at FOX News."

From Talking Points Memo

Before I make Megyn Kelly sound like a dumb blonde from Beverly Hills, or the valley in Los Angeles where she competed with Britney Spears for Valley Girl of The Year and even beat her, I've been with her on the so-called Donald Trump debate.

Megyn has been damn right about The Donald from the beginning and along with Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith and perhaps Charles Krauthammer, the only people at so-called Fox News, (Tea Party News in actuality) who've gotten The Donald and his realty show for a presidential campaign right from the beginning. That he's a one-man reality show and when he says he's not a politician you better believe him, because he should have nothing to do with politics and government. Because the man only says and does things to be popular whether he believes in them or not.

The other positive thing I would give the Valley Princess, I mean Megyn Kelly credit for is that she and Chris Wallace, I believe have both done a great job with the Republican presidential debates.

Chris Wallace, is actually a journalist and perhaps he, Shep Smith and Carl Cameron, perhaps get lonely at FNC for being the only real journalists there. With the rest of the FNC crew sounding and looking like Human Events, Washington Times, or Washington Examiner, columnists.

Before I watched the first GOP debate I was expecting FNC to set up Jeb Bush with a lot of softball pitches so he could swing for the fences and hit a lot of home runs. Why they bash The Donald and the Far-Right candidates, in order to make the GOP look better. But they've done a very good with all the candidates.

Now as far as the bimbo image at Fox News: I agree with Mark Skousen, but I would put it differently. When you are the lead anchorwoman says that White Christmas, "is just for White people", you have a problem. When you say Santa Claus, who doesn't even exist by the way, (sorry, kids) "must be White", you have a problem. Or claiming Jesus was White and I could go on unfortunately, but Megyn has made all of these claims in the past.

It would be one thing if Megyn was doing this on some public access channel in Huntsville, Alabama, but she has a big voice on FNC. And when she throws out this nonsense,(I'm being generous)  it gets out and makes herself and the network she works for look like they're dumb as bricks and are not in touch with the real world. Because you're not if you actually take any of these quotes seriously and believe them.

For a woman to be a bimbo, you have to be really attractive and dumb at the same time. I'll grant that Megyn is a very adorable and a beautiful woman, but she's skinny as a stick and looks like a Valley Girl on TV.

And when Megyn makes those dumb comments she just backs that image up as a dumb blonde. Whatever you think of MSNBC and their talk lineup, MSNBC at least their management is not nearly as Far-Left and socialist as they come off. They're a business looking for ratings and if that means having a lot of Far-Left commentators in order to do that, then that is what they're going to do.

And maybe Fox News is the same thing with the Tea Party. And just has a lot of people on to speak for the Tea Party and showcase their point of view for the ratings. Even if their management is not that Far-Right. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Steven Crowder: 'Thanksgiving- A Politically Incorrect Guide'

Source:Steven Crowder- The Real Steven Crowder.

“Whilst you carve that Thanksgiving turkey, lets scalp some buffalo crap myths about Pilgrims and Native Americans.”

Source:Steven Crowder

To start off on a positive note before I send everyone to back the Great Depression, (actually, it won’t be that bad) but I just want to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone who doesn’t view this great American holiday as a racist holiday. For the rest of you, please seek help and perhaps smoke a joint and learn to relax. But to the Social Justice Warriors, Canada which many (Socialists and even Communists) celebrate as some great utopian social democratic utopia, celebrates Thanksgiving. So who are the racists now: America, or Canada) Perhaps both in a Social Justice Warrior’s peanut-sized brain. Thanksgiving, is not about celebrating the Europeans victory over the American-Indians. But celebrating what we all have to be thankful for.

Thanksgiving, is really one of those handful of holidays that we have in America where families get together and drive each other crazy. Leaving people to remember why they haven’t seen their uncle in a whole year. Perhaps brother, sister, aunt, in-laws, parents even. As well as to remember how thankful they are to have relatives that will drive them crazy. Not to get drunk and celebrate European victory over the American-Indians. This is a great holiday a day when Americans can feel proud to eat, drink, watch football all day, not bother to exercise. Not a day to celebrate the fact that Europeans conquered America and left the American-Indians to live on reservations. By the way, American-Indians are free to live with other Americans in America, European and otherwise.

Thanksgiving, is that great American holiday that actually brings Americans together in a very divided country. Where people who believe Barack Obama is destroying America, break bread with people who believe minorities are entitled not to be offended. People who believe that ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act its supporters such as myself, is a Marxist government takeover of the health care system, can break bread with people who believe the ACA is a good thing and will make the American health care system look like Germany. Where you have to cover your own health care costs, but get to choose how you pay for it with a market of different health insurers. Thanksgiving is not a holiday to jump into an American-Indian’s face and say: “Ha! We won and you lost!” If there is one holiday that should unite all Americans that everyone can take one day off and just relax and enjoy themselves and give thanks, it’s Thanksgiving.

As far as what Steven Crowder had to say about Thanksgiving and American-Indians: I could just let his words speak for themself, but I agree with him on political correctness and the Far-Left in America. But to take himself seriously as an American historian, he’s a comedian. And that would mean I would also have to take Jane Fonda seriously as a political activist and economist. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

American Thinker: Mark Musser- 'From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism'

Source:The Daily Review- Karl Marx & someone else, LOL!

"The USSR died an ugly death in the 1990s. Yet, such an ugly political collapse proved to be very opportunistic for many communist leaders throughout the Soviet Union who hated the Marxist ideology that actually placed some restrictions on their behavior. Many of them privatized state companies to themselves and thus became the biggest mafia the world has ever seen. Putin, as a former KGB spymaster, is now in relative control of this mafia in spite of all the clans competing with one another from the Ukrainian Crimea to the Russian Far East."

Source:American Thinker

Source:Computing Forever- How much time do you have?

"Images in this video sourced are royalty free, creative commons, public domain from Wiki images &Pixabay."

From Computing Forever

Equating liberalism with communism and Marxism, is like equating Christian-Conservatism with libertarianism. Why, because Marxism and liberalism, are very different. Marxism, Fa-Left, liberalism at best Center-Left, (really only in America) Center-Right in most of the rest of the developed world. Libertarianism and Christian-Conservatism, very different, but both on the Right.

Better comparisons here would be to compare liberalism and libertarianism, because they are both about liberty and the individual. But go about in different ways. Liberals, want to use a limited government to help create a society where everyone can thrive. Through things like education and infrastructure. Libertarians, practically see any government as a form of big government.

Marxism and Christian-Conservatism, are both different. For one, Marxists don't believe in any religion and religion would either be illegal, or under strict controls in a Marxist State. But they're both fascist in the sense that they both believe in their views and values so much that they believe any opposition would just be dangerous for society and shouldn't be tolerated. To go against a Marxist or Christian Theocratic State, should be subjected to death. Not that different if at all from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So if you're on the Right and lets with the Tea Party, or way over on the Right and believe America should all get into a national time machine and go back to 1915 or something and Modern America looks more alien to you than Latinos, or women not only voting, but working, if you're going to equate Marxists with Liberals, look out for yourself being compared with Theocrats and even Islamists. Who believe individualism is dangerous and freedom to assemble, protest, form oppositions, are immoral and everything else. That people being free to be themselves and live their own lives is as immoral as raping a kid or something. In a fascist's mind.

Marxists, are fascists who are so full of themselves who kiss the mirror every time they're in the bathroom. Who think anyone who disagrees with them should be shot or something. Liberals, believe in free speech. After all we created it, along with the U.S. Constitution. And we believe in liberty and individualism, which are the opposites of Marxists. Who believe they know best how everyone should live and think and that it is the job of government to take care of everyone for everyone. But Marxist superstate and a theocratic superstate, are very similar in the sense that they see individualism as dangerous. Which is why they both believe in big government so much.

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

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

Sargon of Akkad: 'Hipster Racists'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Probably crossing a line by comparing OWS with Adolf Hitler. 

"Progressive hipsters have decided that "racism" is no longer a concept but a "structure" or "system" as a rationalisation to see racism against non-white people everywhere or in turn be prejudiced against white people.

Which, incidentally, is exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther King Jr wanted, but I'm sure they know better than he does."

Source:Sargon of Akkad: Hipster Racists

When did race and color blindness become "like so not awesome and old school", or whatever with the New-Left in America? I mean how can someone call them self an admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King when they don't get his basic messages of non-violence and color blindness. 

And let's be clear about what color blindness is and what I'm talking about here is race blindness. Only blind people don't see race and color. So thats not what this is about. What I'm talking about is not judging people based on their complexion and race. I don't think Joe is better than John, or anyone else, because I like his complexion and race, or that we share those things. Their race and color has nothing to do with how I feel about Joe, or John, Mary, Sally, whoever the hell it may be.

"People of color", there's a great hipster term that I hate. As opposed to people who don't have color? Well, if that was true how would you describe people of olive complexion? Which includes Mediterranean-Europeans, Southern Slavs, Jews, Arabs, and other people's? They obviously have color and so do people of Anglo and Nordic descent and Germanic descent. We all have color, just not as much color as other people of color like Africans and South Asians. (To use as examples) 

Again, it goes back to color blindness which is another way of saying not judging people by color, race, or ethnicity. Hipsters don't have a problem with judging people by color and race. Just as long as they aren't Caucasian. Because in their little Pluto size world of the hipster New-Left there's no such thing as racism against Caucasians.

I guess what is called hipster racism and I call it ignorance, because I'm not ready to label all leftist hipsters as racist and I imagine most of them aren't, but hipster ignorance is another example of one things. How tragic the death of Dr. Martin Luther King's was who was the ultimate leader when it came to racial tolerance and equality where he truly wanted an America where Americans weren't judged by race and color. And had the New-Left bothered to study MLK instead of, gee I don't know, Karl Marx, or Che Guevara, well for one, the New-Left in America wouldn't be the New-Left. Because they wouldn't be so far out on a marijuana trip ideologically. 

The Far-Left in America would be a lot smarter and not making people on Left in general look like bigots. But good tolerant people who believe in opportunity and freedom for all. Where we aren't judged by race and color. 

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