Bernard Goldberg: Donald Trump Is No Ronald Reagan

e6eececf-aa5c-4f64-add9-a3612109bee2

Source: Bernard Goldberg– Donald Trump, meeting Vladimir Putin in Helsinki 

Source: The New Democrat

To say Donald Trump, is no Ronald Reagan, is like saying it gets hot in South Florida during the summer. You would be so guilty of stating the obvious that you would have to plead guilty if stating the obvious was illegal and beg for a plea bargain or mercy from the court. As much as today’s Republicans claim to love Ronald Reagan, they don’t because they love Donald Trump instead who is very different not just politically, but in tone, temperament, character, or lack of character on The Donald’s part.

0a0805c0-d17f-4b72-a42e-352008b3517b

Source: Bernard Goldberg– Classic Bully Donald Trump, taking on a disabled reporter in 2016

Whatever you think of Ronald Reagan’s politics and his presidency, most people tended to give him the benefit of the doubt that he at least believed what he was saying. Unlike Big Don, where 3-5 Americans depending on what poll you look at don’t like the man and tend not to believe him when he’s speaking. What Republicans like about Ronald Reagan is his popularity and the fact that he’s a Republican, his supply side or as Democrats call borrow and spend economics, he was tough on crime and believed in large defense budgets.

812d6a43-af29-43a3-9479-0fbc9a1574d2

Source: Mike Russo Expose– President’s Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington & Ronald Reagan 

But beyond that today’s GOP doesn’t like The Gipper’s politics, because he believed in immigration, diversity, multiculturalism, America is a city on a shining hill that welcomes everyone that is willing to work and contribute to America. In today’s Republican Party if you’re not of Western-Northern European, especially British Protestant background, they don’t want you and see you as Un-American, shit holes. ( To use President Trump’s own words) Reagan, Saw big government as a threat whether it interfered into either economic and or personal affairs. Not only was Reagan not in bed with the Christian-Right on social issues, he wasn’t even in the same room, floor, home, neighborhood, city, zip code, county, state, etc. Unlike the Christian-Right that goes to bed politically with Donald Trump every night as he tucks them in.

Reagan, hated authoritarianism in all forms whether it was communism, nationalism, or religious fundamentalism. Unlike Donald Trump, who has tried to become friends with at least two Communists in President Xi Jinping from China and President Kim Jung-Un from North Korea. And wants President Vladimir Putin from Russia, to be his best friend, perhaps has a poster of him in his bedroom, running to be President of the Vladimir Putin Fan Club, if his current gig doesn’t work out. And yet you always here Tea Party Republicans today talk about Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, as if they’re the same man both politically and as far as personality. When they’re as different as weather reports from Seattle, Washington and Miami, Florida in January.

Advertisements
Posted in The Donald | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The John Birch Society: Solution To Big Government

dbe6406c-4295-420c-a42e-1e3681f0636a

Source: The John Birch Society– Who is this?

Source: The New Democrat

Keep in mind, this video is from The John Birch Society, which is sort of like The National Enquirer or The Star when it comes to political and governmental news. Not exactly award winning when it comes to news, because they tend to be made of antigovernment Libertarians and Far-Right conspiratorial Nationalists, who believe the 9/11 attacks were made up or an inside job, the CIA murdered President John F. Kennedy, etc, not exactly people with a good deal of judgement and perhaps even honesty.

32980604-c1dd-43c6-9c9a-1e56b16b6e8d

Source: Renew America– Big Government, in need of Weight Watchers 

Having said all of that the speaker in this video ( whoever she is ) did make some good points about big government and the solutions to big government. I don’t agree with her that current makeup of the U.S. Government is unconstitutional, misplaced and at least in some areas doing too much and overwhelmed and doing things that should be left up to the states, sure! But that’s different from being constitutional or unconstitutional.

4c9b5190-55b0-47d5-85f3-6eacabbf75b0

Source: Tenth Amendment Center– Say no to big government 

If you want to get rid of big government, you should at least know what it is. And I know what you’re thinking, that sounds like some crazy commonsense that anyone with half of a brain could understand. But the two words big and government get thrown out a lot by people who think they know what they mean together, but in a lot of cases don’t know what big government is and believe in a form of big government themselves and perhaps aren’t even aware of that. So, before you bash big government, make sure you know what you’re bashing. Which sounds as crazy as making sure your parachute works before you jump out of an airplane 20,000 feet in the air. But try it and you might see the benefits from that of actually knowing what you’re talking about before you actually talk about it.

d3309baa-0412-4cb1-8e77-5540a190af0f

Source: Freedom and Prosperity– Outlaw big government 

According to Wikipedia

“Big government is a term used to describe a government or public sector that is excessively large and unconstitutionally involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used in the context of the United States to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions—an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]”

Big government is not just government that’s too big, because why is it too big in the first place, because it does too much and has too much authority in areas that should be left up to the states or localities, private sector, or involved in areas where it has no business being involved in, in the first place.

Like telling consensual adults who they can sleep it or live with.

Regulate how people communicate with each other because they’re worried about people being offended.

Telling consensual adults who they can marry.

Or trying to prevent people from a certain religion from even entering the United States.

Telling people where they can get their health care and health insurance.

Taxing people to the point where it makes it hard for them to run their business or even pay their bills on their own, because their taxes are too damn high. ( Pun intended )

These are all examples of big government which is government either doing too much or being involved in areas where no level of government should be involved in the first place like being involved in free adults private affairs and lives.

So, now that we know what big government looks like let’s then look at how we get it and can get more of it. The easy answer to that and something that a layman might say would be that big government comes from our politicians and the government itself. Well, that would be partially true, but that would be like saying food comes from the grocery stores, but without farms growing and producing the food that we eat, the grocery stores wouldn’t have food to sell at all.

Big government doesn’t come from our politicians and government officials, but where do they come from? To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin, they didn’t just suddenly appear from Mars or the Moon, they came from the communities and states that elected them. In order words big government comes from the people who vote for the politicians who support big government and then back it while they’re in office. If a solid majority of people in a community, state or country wants big government, then that’s exactly what the people will get in a representative democracy, at least until it gets thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, if you don’t like big government and don’t want it, I have another commonsense solution for you which might give you more reason to believe that I’m not only crazy but have my very own mental institution or at least ward that was built just for me and others who also believe in commonsense. If you don’t want or like big government, don’t support it, don’t vote for it, and campaign against it. Know the people you’re considering for public office before you actually vote for them. ( Another commonsense solution )

No more blind voting and vote for people that share your political and national values, instead of voting for people who you think sound cool or look hip. Vote for people who actually represent your values and if that means you believe in individual freedom and free choice and you do your homework, you’re going to vote for people who believe in those things as well and against big government. And as a result you’ll get less big government in the process.

John Birch Society: July 4th Solution To Big Government

Posted in Big Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Andrew Yezen: FNC Special Report- Kirsten Powers: ‘Charles Krauthammer Knows He’s a Neoconservative’

30859

Source: Andrew Yezen– Then Fox News political analyst, Kirsten Powers

Source: The New Democrat

I first came across Kirsten Powers who was once a columnist for The Daily Beast and political analyst for Fox News, ( one of like 3 Liberals at Fox News ) when I saw her book in 2014-15 about fascism arguing how the Left ( Far-Left, really ) is killing free speech in America. And she argues and I agree with her on this that free speech is a liberal value and I would argue that free speech are Liberals number one value, perhaps even higher than right to privacy and equal rights. She’s now a columnist for USA Today and I read her column in the late summer of 2015 when Donald Trump was just running for President at that point and she argued that Trump is an Evangelical scam artist. That is pretty close to the literal title of that column and I agree with her on that as well.

24140

Source: Fox News Insider– Kirsten Powers vs. Charles Krauthammer

Kirsten Powers, is now a political analyst over at CNN and still a columnist for USA Today and she is a Liberal, but not in the sense that you may believe Liberals are supposed to be and this is what Liberals believe in. In other words, she’s not a Socialist in any sense and believes in things like free speech, privacy, personal choice, as well as personal responsibility, things that today’s so-called Liberals ( Socialists, really ) don’t believe in. And I like her for many reasons and one of them as you see in this video is that she’s very tough and expects to be able to make her points and arguments and doesn’t have much if any tolerance for rude interruptions, especially when two people try to speak over her. She’s also ver witty and she’s so adorable and yet grown up as well and is just very easy to listen to because she’s so sharp, witty, and adorable, as well as beautiful all at the same time.

55138

Source: The Blaze– Kirsten Powers vs. Charles Krauthammer

Kirsten Powers, even though it took her a while to get there, definition of Neoconservative is pretty good. “Someone who is very hawkish on foreign policy and national security and believes in using American military force to advance democracy around the world.” And yes, Neoconservatives gave us the 2003 Iraq War because they wanted democracy to come to Iraq. And as it turns out weapons of mass destruction, was really just an excuse for sending America to war in Iraq. The real Neoconservative objective here was to eliminate the Saddam Hussein Regime and replace it with an American friendly democratic government and state.

8c1cbd0d-3cd3-45b8-a45c-03dd853731c0

Source: Fox News– Then Fox News political analyst, Kirsten Powers

Kirsten Powers, also made another good point here when she says that Charles Krauthammer knows he’s a Neocon. Krauthammer is one of the fathers of the American modern neoconservative movement. Former Progressive Democrats who are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security. They’re still progressive on economic policy as far as what they believe that government should do as it relates to the economy and helping people in need help themselves and believe in things like the New Deal and Great Society, but that the safety net should just be there for people who truly need it and aren’t Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists ( people like Bernie Sanders ) who believe that public social insurance programs should be universal.

It’s weird to see Charles Krauthammer denying his neoconservatism and that he’s a Neoconservative, because again Krauthammer is one of the original Neoconservatives in America. But it was also great to see Kirsten Powers call him out on that just flatly say that he knows he’s a Neoconservative. She literally called ( excuse my language ) bullshit on him and did it on national TV.

My simple definition of a Neoconservative is someone who is a right-wing Progressive. Someone who is not anti-government and believes in the safety net and a basic regulatory state and things like equal rights, but who isn’t a Social Democrat and puts real limits on what government should try to do for people and is very hawkish on national security, foreign policy, and law enforcement. What they were talking about in this segment, had to do with Neoconservatives as it related to national security and foreign affairs, but there’s a broader political philosophy to neoconservatism.

Andrew Yezen: FNC Special Report- Kirsten Powers: ‘Charles Krauthammer Knows He’s a Neoconservative’

Posted in Neoconservative | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Charles Krauthammer: April 22nd, 2005

7919

Source: C-SPAN– Brian Lamb, interviewing Charles Krauthammer, back in 2005

Source: The New Democrat

I could just start with the first couple minutes of this interview on Charles Krauthammer’s comment on positive liberty versus negative liberty, because this is one issue where I agree with Krauthammer as a Liberal myself who believes in negative liberty over positive liberty and make that this whole piece. But I saw this interview last week when C-SPAN replayed it and there are a few other things I would like to talk about well like right-wing Progressives, which I believe Krauthammer was one and get into that as well.

21184

Source: The Truthseeker– Charles Krauthammer quote 

As far as positive liberty versus negative liberty: positive liberties are things that government are supposed to provide for the people that they promise, when a political party that believes in positive liberty over negative liberty comes into power. Which is basically the freedom for people to not have to make decisions for themselves and not take control over their own lives. Not have to decide how to finance their kids education and where to send them to school. Choose which hospital to go to and send their kids. Not have to decide where to get their health insurance, because government would provide that for them. Not to have to plan their own retirement, because government will take care of that for them. Things that Socialists both democratic and communistic believe in.

a6c82985-4953-4952-9b60-0cc19922bb7e

Source: WFAA-TV– Charles Krauthammer quote 

What Charles Krauthammer described as negative liberty, is probably the same definition that former Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona ( Mr. Conservative ) would give for negative liberty, which is the right to be left alone from government short of hurting innocent people with what they’re doing. That goes for both economic as well as personal freedom. The right for people to make their own financial decisions like with health care, health insurance, education, retirement, starting their own business and making their own business decisions. Just as long as they personally pay for their own decisions and take personal responsibility for their own decisions.

But that negative liberty also covers personal decisions and personal freedom as well. Again, to go back to the right to be left alone short of hurting innocent people with what they’re doing. If romantic couples want to live together and even have kids together before they’re married, that’s their business. If adults want to smoke and posses marijuana, that’s their business. If they want to gamble their own money, that’s their business. If they want to image in pornographic activities and watch and read porn themselves, that’s their business. And these are just a few examples, just as long as they’re not forcing their personal adult activities onto minors or even adults that choose not to engage in them.

The main different between supporters of positive liberty which tend to be Socialists both democratic and otherwise, versus supporters of negative liberty which are Liberals, ( Classical Liberals, if you prefer ) and Conservative-Libertarians has to do with the right to be left alone short of hurting innocent people with what they’re doing. Socialists, tend not to believe in risk and investment, unless of course it’s government that’s doing the investing and tend to see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians, view risk and private investment, as the necessary tools and resources to have a truly free society.

Like I said, I could’ve made this whole piece about positive liberty versus negative liberty, but there was one other aspect here about Charles Krauthammer that I would like to get into as well which is his definition of Neoconservative people who I call right-wing Progressives, not former Liberals, but right-wing Progressives. The Nelson Rockefeller’s, George Romney’s, Newt Gingrich’s, of the world, people like Representative Paul Ryan today before he became Speaker of the House. And I know right-wing Progressive sounds crazy sort of like how a Libertarian-Communist would or even Libertarian-Socialist would sound in today’s crazy American politics, but I’ll explain what I mean by that.

According to popular American political and political pop culture, a Progressive today is essentially a statist, both democratic and communistic. Someone who believes in the state ( meaning government ) over everything else and that it’s the job of government to manage people’s lives for them and that there is a big government solution to solve everyone’s problems for them. And to get back to one of my points about positive liberty, that freedom to too risky and is dangerous and you need big government to limit individual freedom so everyone in society is taken care of. But that is not what Progressives are what progressivism is about.

The best and easiest definition of Progressive, is someone who believes in creating progress through government action, but through limited government action. That government can’t do everything for people, but needs to be there to help people are struggling get onto their own feet. With things like temporary financial assistance and a broader safety net, but who wants to use that safety net to help people get on their own feet and become economically self-sufficient and free. With things like education, job training, job placement into good jobs, infrastructure and encouraging economic development into low-income community with large populations of low-income and low-educated people.

You have the right-wing Progressives that I’ve already mentioned and then you have left-wing Progressives who again aren’t Socialists and who also puts real limits on what government should try to do for the people. Left-wing Progressives like former President Barack Obama, who believed government could be used to help people and empower people to be able to take control of their own lives. And people like former President’s Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Center-Left Progressives, who believed in positive government to empower people who are struggling to take control over their own lives.

Charles Krauthammer was a Progressive, but on the Center-Right a Center-Right Progressive, people who would be called Neoconservatives today. People who are very hawkish when it comes to national security and law enforcement and don’t tend to trust international organizations like the United Nations and international rule of law. Who even believe in what’s called America First, but who aren’t Nationalists, but people who believe that America should step in whenever they believe is necessary even by themselves, to protect innocent people from authoritarian regimes and to remove those regimes so democracy can takeover. The 2003 Iraq War, perfect example of that.

But, Neoconservatives are not anti-government even when it relates to the economy and tend to believe in commonsense regulations, a safety net for people who truly need it that encourages work and self-sufficiency. So Neoconservatives tend to support the American safety net like the New Deal and Great Society, but who again are very hawkish when it comes to national security and law enforcement and tend to not believe in civil liberties for suspected criminals and terrorists.

I’m just as sad as anyone else who didn’t personally know Charles Krauthammer, but who respected him even though I tend to disagree with him especially on foreign affairs and national security, because he was really sharp and honest. Wasn’t a political hack for anyone who just defended someone just because they were a Democrat or Republican, but instead spoke his mind and told people what he thinks and believes regardless of who and how to may have benefited or hurt someone.

Charles Krauthammer was brilliant at using humor to make his political arguments to point out the stupidity in American politics and government. He was a breath of fresh air in an American political culture that’s dominated by polluted air like FNC and MSNBC, that is only in the business to back their side and try to destroy the other side. And he’ll be missed indefinitely, especially by people who simply just want to know what’s going and what people think about, instead of how the news can be used to hurt or benefit one side or the other.

C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Charles Krauthammer: April 22nd, 2005

Posted in Life | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Red Nay: Susann Uplegger- Biker Chick: From a 1997 Movie

36319

Source: Red Nay– Susann Uplegger, as a biker chick

Source: Action

I’m guessing this movie is from Europe and if this video was uploaded from someone who is also from Europe, it would be nice if they would’ve done the research or added the title of the movie to this video. Especially if they’ve seen the movie themselves, because if you’re watching this movie from an American or even Canadian perspective, but outside of Europe, unless you’re familiar with European movies let’s say from Germany, France, or Italy, to use as examples and have watched a lot of their movies, especially if you’re not familiar with the actresses and actors involved, you’re not going to know what you’re watching online here.

62562

Source: Leather Dating– Leather Dating model

It would like let’s say a German or Frenchman, watching American movies online from their home in Germany or France and even if their English is pretty good and at least in Germany’s case their English tends to be very good and they can watch American, British, or Canadian TV and movies without translation into their first language, you’re not going to know what you’re watching unless the title of the show and movie is provided to you.

As far as the video itself, a very good looking woman, an unknown actress at least from an American perspective. Playing a biker chick in some unknown movie or TV show. I’m guessing this is German they’re speaking, but I only speak about 20 words of German and have a decent idea what the language sounds like, but they could be speaking Dutch as well. A very attractive head-to-toe in black leather on her biker. Black biker leather jacket, black leather jeans, black leather biker boots. A beautiful redhead, nice body playing a very attractive biker chick.

Red Nay: Biker Chick- From a 1997 Movie

Posted in Action | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debates Ann Scott in 1973

7924

Source: Firing Line With William F. Buckley– Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly 

Source: The New Democrat

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men, what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had.

8798

Source: Dialogues– William F. Buckley, Ann Scott, & Phyllis Schlafly 

My issues with radical feminism which is just a form of socialism and part of the broader socialist movement in America and outside of America, is that they believe that women are superior to men and therefor should be treated better than men. That it’s not equal rights for women that they are seeking, since they already had those under the U.S. Constitution and under our civil rights laws. But they want women to be treated better than men not just in the culture, but under law. For women to be the boss in general instead of women or men just becoming the boss based on their education, skills, and production, but just be treated better than men and having more power than men simply because they’re women. Not because they earned that right simply because of their intelligence, qualifications, and productivity.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debating Ann Scott

Posted in Firing Line | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Neox Term: Marion Kracht- in Full Leather: Biker Chick From a Movie

91498

Source: Neox Term– Marion Kracht, as a biker chick

Source: Action

If you’re familiar with both American women and European women ( European women, meaning women who live in Europe and were born there ) you know that leather is more popular in Europe especially in the big countries like Germany and France, than it is in America. As least when it comes to pants. American women like leather leggings and in some cases, leather trousers, and of course leather skirts.

80453

Source: Btta Zhuahuasuan– Unknown woman, on European TV

But European women like leather jeans jeans as well. Skin-tight jeans are all over Europe and not just in denim, but leather as well. You see female newscasters doing their shows in skin-tight skinny jeans and not just denim but leather as well. You see female TV talk show hosts doing their shows both in denim as well as leather jeans. DW-TV has several female weather women, doing their weather casts in skinny jeans. Generally in denim, but sometimes leather.

13863

Source: Leather Empire– Stephanie Lagarde, on European TV

Claudia Kleinert, who at least was a meteorologist for DW-TV, has done several of her weather casts in skinny jeans in boots. A lot of the movies and TV shows that you see in Germany and in Holland, you not only see a lot of biker women over there, biker women in leather, biker women in full leather, including leather jeans. Skin-tight jeans that are made from leather instead of denim. Marion Kracht, who is a German actress is an example of that.

And I’m sort of surprised not that leather jeans are popular with European women, but that they’re not more popular with American women. At least not outside rock and biker culture with rocker chicks and biker chicks, because American women love showing off their bodies, at least when they have a beautiful tight body. The average American sexy woman, has a jeans fetish to the point they start looking to get out of their jeans ruts and look for other pants to wear.

And skin-tight skinny jeans, are about as sexy as any woman can wear in America and as revealing as well. You know how good of a body any woman has by how they look in skin-tight jeans. Tight skirts as well. And yet American women seem to not like leather jeans, because they feel they’re too tight or revealing, but not tighter or more revealing than leather jeans. American women tend to have jeans fetishes, but denim jeans fetishes, but not leather jeans fetishes.

Neox Term: Marion Kracht- In Full Leather

Posted in Action | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment