Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Opinion: Phillip Hughes: Lets Get Redskins Legend Joe Jacoby in The Pro Football Hall of Fame

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Opinion: Phillip Hughes: Lets Get Redskins Legend Joe Jacoby in The Pro Football Hall of Fame

If you look at the Redskins of the 1980s and early 1990s, great teams with their share of great players, but not teams that had Hall of Fame players at every position. These were really good, if not great teams, that won three Super Bowls and four Conference Championships and played in five Conference Final’s, from 1982-91. You have to have great players to do that and the Redskins did in their leadership. But similar to the Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Miami Dolphins of the 1970s, New England Patriots of the 2000s, they had some great players, but with a lot of very good players behind their stars. And great coaches on both sides of the ball.

Offensive tackle Joe Jacoby, was one of the Redskins great players. If you look at how the Redskins dominated the 1982 NFC Playoffs and then won that Super Bowl and manhandled the Dolphins up front on both sides of the ball, especially in the second half, Joe Jacoby, was dominating in that game and leading those charges. But go to the NFC Championship, before the Super Bowl and how the Redskins OL dominated Ed Jones and Randy White and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys defensive line, Big Jac, was consistently clearing his man out-of-the-way. And he and offensive guard Russ Grimm, who is already in the Hall of Fame, were leading those charges in that game. John Riggins and The Hogs, ran the ball down the throat of the Cowboys defense in that game.

Go to Super Bowl 22 against the Denver Broncos, again Timmy Smith, great game running the ball and Doug Williams with a career game throwing the ball. But the Broncos defense in a lot of those plays were barely in the picture, because Big Jac and The Hogs were consistently clearing them out-of-the-way. And opening up huge holes for Tim Smith and giving Doug Williams, five minutes each play to decide who to throw the ball to. And the 1991 Hogs, might be the Redskins best offensive line of all-time. I mean, when you’re towards the top of the league in scoring, passing and running and your quarterback is only sacked eight times all year, its hard to argue with that. Joe Jacoby, now playing guard for the Redskins next to Jim Lachey, was a big part of that as well.

Joe Jacoby, is one of the leaders of a team that wins two Super Bowls and three conference championships in the 1980s and is on the 1980s NFL All Decade team and plays in four Pro Bowls and arguably the anchor of the best offensive line of at least the 1980s. If that is not evidence that this great big offensive tackle, one of the first great big OT in the NFL, should be in the Hall of Fame, then a lot of great o-lineman, who are already in the Hall of Fame, perhaps shouldn’t be there. The Hall of Fame, was late on Art Monk, perhaps one of the top five all around receivers of all-time. They were late on Russ Grimm, perhaps the best guard of his era, who could also play tackle and center. They’re even later on Joe Jacoby, but his time will come, if not next year, certainly soon after that. Too great of a player to leave out.


Monday, June 29, 2015

Liberty Pen: Video: Charles Murray: Who Killed The Constitution?

Liberty Pen: Video: Charles Murray: Who Killed The Constitution?

Who Killed The Constitution? Interesting question, if only the Constitution were itself dead. I think Libertarians get themselves in trouble when they talk about social welfare legislation as being unconstitutional, when you have Federal court decisions going back eighty years saying that these programs are constitutional. And for good reasons as well, under the Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause. Instead Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians, would be better off simply arguing the merits of these programs. “Should they even exist in the first place. If not, how you get rid of them. Since we might be stuck with them, would we be better off if they were run at the state level?” Something Charles Murray, has suggested. Instead of trying to make the case that the New Deal and Great Society are unconstitutional, when 7-8 out 10 Americans disagree with you.

As far as the Constitution, I believe it has been weaken. At least since the so-called War on Terror was launched in 2001. And we’re technically still fighting it today, with the Patriot Act and everything else. But the First Amendment, our Freedom of Speech and Religion, are still very strong. Our Second Amendment, when was the last time a major gun control law was passed and held up the U.S. Supreme Court? Equal Protection Clause, with same-sex marriage becoming the law of the land and other anti-gay laws being struck down. The Fourth Amendment, for anyone Left and Right interested in the Right to Privacy and believes in personal freedom in general, has taken a big hit under the War on Terror. And Congress, not doing their jobs and holding the Executive accountable when it comes to declaring war. But that’s Congress not doing their jobs and their people not holding them accountable.

The Constitution, has certainly been weaken, the last fifteen years, or so. And both the Bush and Obama administration’s have taken advantage of that. But Charles Murray, isn’t able to write his book about the Constitution and I’m not blogging stuff that goes against the Obama Administration, without the First Amendment. As well as others, because we would be thrown in jail, or at the very least held for questioning, for suspicion of being enemies of the state, or something. For printing material that goes against current government policy. The Constitution, is a great and beautiful thing that grants along with the Bill of Rights all of our individual freedom, both personal and economic. And when the government follows the Constitution, we tend to get good government. But even when they don’t, the Constitution is still there protecting our freedom. From intrusions of big government.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Reason: Hit & Run Shikha Dalmia: “SCOTUS Fuctus on ObamaCare”: Interpreting John Roberts’s King V Burwell Decision

Reason's Sense of Humor
Reason: Hit & Run Shikha Dalmia: “SCOTUS Fuctus on ObamaCare”: Interpreting John Roberts’s King V Burwell Decision

Anyone interested, or concern about the title of this piece, especially the first part. Apparently Shikha Dalmia, had a bad day over at Reason today and perhaps doesn’t control, or express her anger very well. For the life of me, I can’t understand what she has to be upset about. Ha, ha. Maybe she’ll smoke a joint, or something and calm her nerves.

I was just reading Chief Justice John Roberts decision. And he says the ACA has a provision where if states don’t set up their own health care exchanges for health insurance subsidies, the Federal Government will step in and provide people with those tax credits. That is the ballgame in this case. King, in King V Burwell, argued and perhaps not very well, considering they lost 6-3 and lost two Republican votes, that if a state, does not decide to set up a health care exchange, than the people in those states aren’t eligible for the tax credits.

So that’s King V Burwell. King, arguing that the states have to set up their own exchanges for the people in those states to be eligible for the tax credit. Burwell, arguing that the Federal Government can step in and makeup for a state not doing their own exchange. With the Chief Justice, a Republican and Republican appointee, who’ve I disagree with on many occasions, saying the ACA, already has a provision giving the Feds the ability to provide tax credits for health insurance. Even for people who live in states without health insurance exchanges.


Tuesday, June 23, 2015

PJ Media: Video: Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: Should Prostitution be Legal?

PJ Media: Video: Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: Should Prostitution be Legal?

I have a prediction. Prostitution, will become the next big freedom of choice and personal freedom issue in America. We already have a consensus on same-sex marriage, homosexuality and sexuality in general. As far as believing that this should be up to individual Americans to choose whether how they conduct themselves in their personal lives. And that gay marriage doesn’t affect straight marriage. We have a building consensus on marijuana, especially with young Americans who believe marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. Prostitution, will be next, at least with young Americans and Americans in general who are tired of seeing their high taxes go to funding the prison industrial complex.

Prostitution, like most personal freedom and personal choice issues, comes down to what should government be doing and how much choice and freedom should the individual have over their own lives. Big government statists on the Right and Left will say, “prostitution is dangerous. People get hurt, including the prostitutes with their pimps and everything else. It should always be illegal.” When you make something illegal, you at the very least are saying this is wrong. It should go away and should never be practiced. But what is the oldest profession in the world? Prostitution of course and its illegal in most of the United States. Just because you make something illegal, doesn’t mean it goes away. It just means that some people will be held criminally liable for doing it and getting caught.

So now that we know that, just because you make something that it is dangerous illegal, that doesn’t mean it won’t go away. The question is what should be done about it. And I’m glad to hear a self-described Libertarian like Andrew Klavan actually speak in favor of government regulation. Which segues into my next point. You legalize, regulate and tax prostitution, it still won’t go away. But that’s not my point. The idea is to acknowledge the obvious prostitution is here to stay. So knowing that again what should be done about it. And go to making it as safe as possible.

Registering prostitutes and their boss’s, whether that person is still called a pimp or not. But forcing them to get licensed to work at, manage, or own a prostitution business.

Forcing prostitutes to get medically checked on a regular basis. And requiring them to be healthy in order to work as a prostitute.

Instead of putting legal prostitutes away in jail and letting them out the next morning, crack down on abusive pimps, who beat up their women and steal their money and put them in prison.

Continue to use vice squads and under cover detectives to work the business. But not to arrest prostitutes and johns, but to make sure the employees in the business are acting responsibly and legally.

21 or over with at least a high school diploma at least, healthy and licensed to work in the business. 21 or over, licensed and healthy to be a customer in the business, as well.

Even with these regulations, prostitution is still here to stay. But now it can be as safe a business or profession as it possibly can. With the workers in the business able to make real good money and pay taxes on it. Which would be good for taxpayers, government budgets and the economy.


Saturday, June 20, 2015

The New York Times: Pro Football: Jason Tubrow: Colorful History of Kezar Stadium

The New York Times: Pro Football: Jason Tubrow: Colorful History of Kezar Stadium

I guess from the outside looking in, Kezar Stadium was a very attractive football stadium. With pretty sight lines, in a great part of San Francisco, with a pretty field. Not much different from lets say L.A. Memorial Coliseum, or perhaps Rose Bowl Stadium, but a little more than half the size of both of those historic stadiums. But RFK Stadium in Washington, has a great field, fans are on top of the action, with good sight lines, at least for football, but it looks like underground parking lot, once you go back to the concession stands and move away from the field. Kezar Stadium, not football palace, but certainly a stadium with a lot of character.

In the 1950s, the 49ers became winners and contenders at Kezar. Y.A. Tittle, perhaps one of the top ten quarterbacks of all-time, whose in the Hall of Fame, played for the 49ers at Kezar, not Candlestick Park. He was part of the 49ers Million Dollar Backfield. Tittle, along with running backs Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny, and John Johnson. And RC Owens, great 49ers receiver, was also part of these very good 49er teams. That never seemed to be able to top the Chicago Bears, or Colts in the Western Conference to get to the NFL Championship. Dirty Harry, with Clint Eastwood, did a scene at Kezar.

Kezar Stadium, certainly not a football palace and the 49ers in the early 1970s certainly needed a better football stadium. To have the resources to contend in the NFL in the 1970s and beyond. Kezar, was certainly not Chicago’s Soldier Field, or Green Bay’s Lambeau Field, or even Los Angeles’s Memorial Coliseum, but it was a stadium with a lot of character. It was a true football stadium and not a cookie cutter that was made for both football and baseball in the 1970s. And had San Francisco and the 49ers bothered to renovate the stadium and invest in it, maybe the 49ers are still playing there today. And the Giants, are still playing at Candlestick Park when it was beautiful.


Democracy Journal: Jim Sleeper: Our Puritan Heritage: The Limits of Liberal Democracy

Democracy Journal: Jim Sleeper: Our Puritan Heritage: The Limits of Liberal Democracy

I’m a Liberal Democrat and proud of that, because I believe in liberal democracy and individual rights and the freedom that comes with those things. I believe American liberal democracy and American liberalism, is the best form of government in the world and has been very good to us for almost two-hundred and forty years now, since the founding of the American Federal Republic. I love our private enterprise capitalist system and all the economic freedom that has come with it. Including infrastructure and public education. And I’m sure Europe loves their social democratic big centralized governmental systems, that by in large has worked very well for them.

But just because one system works so well for one country, or several other countries, doesn’t mean that system will work in other countries. The uprisings in the Middle East, including what ISIS is doing in Iraq and Syria, is not a cry out for liberal democracy and individual freedom. But a rebellion against the current central state and central government. And in the case of ISIS, if they were to come to power in Syria and rule that country, they would rule it literally and ruin it. And make Bashar Al-Assad and his regime in Syria look like Moderates. Actually, they’re already done that.

I’m all for assisting countries that want freedom and to build their own liberal society. Whether they are already a democracy, but still developing their economy and state so democracy can thrive there and they don’t go back to authoritarianism. And I’m even for helping rebels who are truly fighting for freedom and are real freedom fighters. Who are taking on the authoritarian state in their country and wanting to bring freedom to their country. But one thing that the Iraq War has taught us, is that you can’t force freedom on another country and expect them to take it. They have to want freedom first and be willing to fight for it and keep it once they have it.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Democracy Journal: Opinion: Nick Hanauer & David Rolf: Shared Security, Shared Growth

Democracy Journal: Opinion: Nick Hanauer & David Rolf: Shared Security, Shared Growth

I agree with Nick Hanauer and David Rolf, that the American economy lacks economic growth and job security. That workers are constantly changing jobs, because either they lose their last job, or aren’t able to find that one job that would allow them to obtain that economic security. Where they’re not only making a good living, but able to put money away in a savings account and for retirement, have a good vacation and put money away for their kids education. But where I guess I disagree with Hanauer and Rolf, has to do with the solutions to these issues. That I don’t believe we need a Scandinavian welfare state to take care of everyone and provide the services that Americans workers use to get from a good job.

That what America needs more, is more economic growth, which leads to more good long-term jobs. You get that through things like economic development and new infrastructure and having a workforce with the skills to get those new jobs. What America should be investing more in, is education and job training for our middle class workers and our low-skilled workers as well. As well as infrastructure, small business development and more small business loans. Especially for workers who aren’t finding those good long-term jobs and instead give them small business loans so they can start their own new business. Perhaps even open up a new cooperatives and even open up these business’s with workers who are in a similar economic situation. As well give them educational and job training opportunities.

We have a huge infrastructure deficit. We have to close that in order to have the strongest economy possible and a modern first world infrastructure system.

We have a lower working class, that needs additional skills, so they can get themselves a good job.

We also have a struggling middle class, that has lost jobs that aren’t coming back. And they need new skills so they can get themselves a good job.

And we need new infrastructure as we as economic investment in underdeveloped areas both rural and urban.

This is what government can do jumpstart economic and job growth that leads to good long-term jobs. Empower people who are struggling to get themselves up and be able to move forward. By investing in infrastructure, opening up new education and job training opportunities and encouraging economic investment in underdeveloped areas.


Monday, June 15, 2015

American Thinker: Opinion: David Gayert: Kirsten Powers’s The Silencing: How The Left is Killing Free Speech

American Thinker: Opinion: David Gayert: Kirsten Powers’s The Silencing: How The Left is Killing Free Speech

Again with the so-called The Left. As if The Left, is united on everything and everyone on The Left sees the world exactly the same way. The Left, similar to The Right, is very diverse. Both sides of the political spectrum, are made up of different political ideological factions. The Left, has Liberals from the Center-Left to Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Communists and Marxists on the Far-Left. The Right, has Conservatives and Conservative Libertarians, on the Center-Right. To Neoconservatives, Theocrats and other rightist statists on the Far-Right. Had Kirsten Powers said, “The Silencing: How The Far-Left is Trying to Kill Free Speech”, I would’ve seen that as a perfect title.

The Far-Left, lets calls them Socialists, Communists, perhaps even, but probably still Democratic, see a world where women are in charge. Because the Radical Feminists have taken over. Forget about equal protection and men and women being equal under law, because women are simply in charge. Because in a Radical Feminist world, women are simply superior than men. “And anyone who goes against this view that women are superior and not equal, is a sexist pig. Who doesn’t even deserved to be heard, let alone debated. That people are essentially stupid and need a big government to manage their economic and personal affairs for them. That Caucasians, are bigots generally, especially if they have an Anglo-Saxon Protestant Southern background. Unless they share the worldview of the Far-left.”

That any critique of, or less than positive comments even if they are true, towards anyone who isn’t Caucasian, is somehow racist. Even if your comments are correct and are about religion and now about race, or ethnicity. As Bill Maher found out last fall when gave some editorials about Islam. I haven’t read the Kirsten Powers book, but if this is what she’s talking about, than she’s probably correct. But it’s not Liberals, as even Powers apparently suggested, but people who are illiberal. Who want to shut down the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world, the Ann Coulter’s, the Bill Maher’s even when he’s not with them. And there’s nothing liberal about these practices. Since the first value of liberalism if Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment. The right for people to speak and associate freely.


Sunday, June 14, 2015

The Atlantic: Opinion: Alan Taylor: The Lights Go Out on Candlestick Park

The Atlantic: Opinion: Alan Taylor: The Lights Go Out on Candlestick Park 

I have mixed feelings about Candlestick Park. Even as someone who has actually never been there. But heard a lot of things about the park both good and bad from people who are much familiar with it than me. As well as seeing a lot of NFL and MLB games played there on TV.

The good aspects about it I think are fairly clear. If you look at the original design of the park from 1960, when the San Francisco Giants moved in for baseball, it is a pretty attractive ballpark and it was baseball only, as far as sports. I'm thinking had the 49ers not have moved in there as well and they kept up with the maintenance of the park, perhaps put up a wall beyond the bleachers in the outfield to keep the wind out played more day games, this would've been a beautiful classic ballpark, that perhaps is still in business today like Dodger Stadium.

The 49ers moving into this park and expanding the capacity to over seventy-thousand seats, including 63-64 thousand for baseball, which is way too big because of all the nosebleed seats in the upper deck, as well as all of those cold even in the summer San Francisco night games, really ruined what once was a beautiful ballpark. But despite all the flaws of this stadium, this was one of the better stadiums both in the MLB and NFL as far as fan atmosphere and attendance. This was a very loud outdoor stadium for both football and baseball and the fans seemed to like it. At least when their teams were good. This was a great home field advantage for the 49ers. Who've had most of their success at Candlestick. With all of those Super Bowl championships and big regular season and playoff games there.

I'm thinking had, the 49ers just of stayed at Kezar Stadium, which was beautiful and football only. Sort of like the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, but about half the size, but renovated it made it up to date for the 1970s with skyboxes and everything else and Candlestick never became a multipurpose stadium, the Giants might still be at Candlestick and the 49ers might still be at Kezar today. Both clubs playing in two of the best looking stadiums in both MLB and the NFL. But no, one of the key terms of the 1970s is cookie cutter. Multipurpose artificial stadiums was the trend in the 1970s. And San Francisco went the same route. Even though all they had to do was renovate Kezar and keep up on the maintenance of both Kezar and Candlestick. Instead of making Candlestick look like a big hole, or dump that got made fun of.


Thursday, June 11, 2015

Creators: Opinion: Thomas Sowell: Who Lost Iraq?

Creators: Opinion: Thomas Sowell: Who Lost Iraq?

Thomas Sowell, said in his piece that China wasn’t America’s to lose in the 1940s, but then suggested President Barack Obama lost Iraq. As if Iraq was America’s to lose. Last time I checked, America doesn’t own Iraq. We no longer occupy Iraq. This might be the first and last time that I’ll ever quote Vladimir Putin on anything, at least something that I agree with him on. But he was asked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And he said, “a country that can’t defend itself, is not a country.” What I would add to that is a country that can’t, or won’t defend itself and Iraq certainly qualifies as that, is just a piece a land where people live.

During President Bush’s administration, it took them four years just to get Iraq stabilized. Because they didn’t have enough troops to occupy the country in the first place. And under the Bush/Cheney policy, America would stay in Iraq until there are no longer any dangers and security challenges in Iraq. They would say that we would stay there until Iraq can defend and govern themselves. Which tells Iraq that they don’t need to defend and govern themselves, because America will always do that for them and our taxpayers will always pay for the government and defense of their country.

President Obama, figured this out pretty quickly when he came to office in 2009. That for Iraq to ever become stabilize and be a place that can govern and defend itself, they need to know that America won’t be there to that for them indefinitely. That they need a government and security forces than can take care of and defend the country themselves. That the Obama Administration will work with and help the Iraqi Government as long as the Iraqi Government and the Iraq people are doing what they can for themselves. Under the Maliki Government in Iraq, what they did was centralize more power with the Central Government, especially with Prime Minister Al-Maliki and became corrupt. And lost the trust of the Iraq people and lost their power as a result.

Iraq, post-War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein, has had their own government for ten years now, going back to 2005. We’ve been training their defense forces for what twelve years now. And that’s because the Bush Administration kicked out the old Iraqi military and they started from scratch. In the midst of a civil war in Iraq. A country that can’t and won’t defend itself, is not a country. Iraq was never America’s to lose, because we never owned it. We went in their by ourselves for the most part and have paid for most of the costs of our being there and occupation. Along with millions of Iraqi’s who have died. If anyone lost Iraq, it was Iraq themselves.


Tuesday, June 9, 2015

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: Why Now’s The Time To Step Up and Fight Against The Drug War

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: Why Now’s The Time To Step Up and Fight Against The Drug War

Congress, the last two weeks has debated the defense authorization bill. The House, is close to passing their bill and the Senate is debating their bill this week and voting on amendments. Both chambers and parties in Congress would also like to end sequestration, in the defense budget and broader Federal budget. I mention these things, because there are better ways to not only pay for our national priorities, while at the same time cutting our deficit and national debt. Instead of fighting bogus so-called wars like the War on Drugs, use that money to, gee, I don’t know, fight terrorists. You know, actual threats to the country and end the War on Drugs.

Stop sending Americans to prison for simply possessing or using illegal narcotics. Legalize and regulate marijuana as if it were alcohol, since pot possesses similar side-effects and challenges to the country. Not legalize cocaine, heroin and meth. I’m not a Libertarian, which might seem surprising, to anyone familiar with my blogging. But decriminalize it in the sense that we stop sending people to prison for using, or possessing it. Instead fine them for possession based on how much they have on them. And send addicts and users to halfway houses and drug rehab, at their expense.

The War on Drugs, is a tragic failure, that never had to happen. Its costs us trillions of dollars that otherwise could’ve been spent on infrastructure, real law enforcement issues, strengthening the defenses of the country and I could go on. And while the economy is still fairly weak, with a deficit and high national debt and millions of Americans still unemployed, we need to be much smarter in how we spend our national resources. And invest in things that work and free up those resources by stop investing in things that don’t work. Like the failed War on Drugs.


Sunday, June 7, 2015

American Thinker: Opinion: Paul Kengor: “From Communists to Progressives, The Left’s Takedown of Family and Marriage”

American Thinker: Opinion: Paul Kengor: “From Communists to Progressives, The Left’s Takedown of Family and Marriage”

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law even, does it say the definition of marriage is between a man and a women. The reason why states started passing same-sex marriage bans in the last ten years or so, as some other states legalized same-sex marriage, because they didn’t have a definition of marriage as between a man and a women.

Until the 1960s, women were supposed to stay at home and not work outside of the house and raise her kids. While the husband/father worked and paid the bills. That was how parenthood was looked at and unofficially defined. Man works and pays the bills. Women stays home and raises the family. That was the definitions of the roles for parents in America, up until the mid or late 1960s. But nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law did it say that was how it was supposed to be by law. Back then, men assumed they would be working and getting married and having kids with that women. And working to pay the bills so their kids could have a better life. As their wife stayed home and raised their kids.

My point is, that just because something has been done for a very long time and has become the societal norm, doesn’t mean that is how it should always be. And that people from different generation’s and era’s can adapt to meet the challenges of their era’s and live accordingly. This is just the main difference between a Liberal such as myself and a Religious-Conservative. The Liberal believes the individual should be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. The Religious-Conservative, or the Traditional Values Conservative, believes, “this is how things are done and this is how they’ve always been done. And when you move away from that, you’re the morality and character of the country.”

It’s just until the last thirty-years or so that gays male and female felt the freedom to be who they are in public and private. And they’ve always only represented at best 5-10% of the American population and back then probably less than that, because so many gays lived in the closet and weren’t counted as a result. So the idea of same-sex marriage for gays was simply not on the map. Especially since the idea of homosexuality seem weird and even immoral to so many Americans. But as a country moves along and is exposed to people other than themselves and gets to learn about other people than themselves, they become more tolerant. And learn that people of other backgrounds are people just like them. In the sense that they want and believe in similar things, but perhaps look, talk and act differently. But aren’t good, or bad simply because of who they are.

America, has become that true liberal democracy for all Americans. Where we all now feel and have the freedom to be ourselves. And not looked down upon, or punished by law simply because of who we are. So now homosexuality is not only considered not that big of a deal in the sense of that person is not good or bad, simply because they are gay. And if they’re not hurting anyone, so what when it comes to who they’re attracted to and how they live their lives. Which is now has become sort of the consensus attitude about gays in America. “And if they want to get married, by all means. Their marriage doesn’t affect my marriage.” Which has become the majority position when it comes to same-sex marriage in America.


Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Washington Free Beacon: Opinion: Matthew Continetti: Bernie Sanders Fossil Socialism: The New Left’s Moderate Voice

Washington Free Beacon: Opinion: Matthew Continetti: Bernie Sanders Fossil Socialism: The New Left’s Moderate Voice

In an era where the Democratic Party and New-Left have been about class and identity politics and protecting this group, or that group, or members of groups from any possible critique in the name of political correctness, you have a self-described Democratic Socialist, unlike most of his supporters, even though he is about as far to the left as anyone can be in America short of being a Marxist, stand up as the voice of moderation. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, who is the voice of reason and moderation. Even though ideologically he is about as Far-Left as most of his supporters.

With Bernie Sanders, you don’t get so-called, “White people, are bigots and bad by in large. And the only ones that are good come from, or were educated in the Northeast, or West Coast” and share their worldview. You don’t get that “American capitalism is a bad thing and it is what is ruining America and making the rest of the world poor.” You don’t get that, “America, is the real terrorist state and terrorists. And we are the real bad guys in the world.” Or that, “individual choice and competition are bad things.” Or that, “middle class Americans are under taxed.” Or that, “private ownership of the media is a bad thing.” And I could go on, but you do hear this, garbage, over at MSNBC and publications as far to the left as their talk lineup.

Matt Continetti, made a good point in his piece about Senator Sanders. Talking about the message that Senator Sanders gave when he announced for president. That government should work for everybody and not just the wealthy. That health care should be a right and not a privilege, that we need a huge investment in infrastructure. That college should available and affordable to all Americans. His message for the most part was positive and reaches a lot of Americans. But then go to MSNBC’s Chris Hays, who might qualify as a Far-Left radical in Sweden, who said that Sanders missed a big opportunity. By not talking quality for transgender people, racial minorities, women and everything else that the Far-Left in America spends most of their focus on now.

On one side you had a U.S. Senator announcing for president who has been in Congress for twenty-four years, representing Vermont in both the House and now Senate. Who knows how Congress works about as anyone who is currently in Congress. Whose chaired a committee and is now the Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee. Whose passed a lot of legislation on his own and has his hands on a lot of the legislation that has passed Congress in the last six years that has been signed by President Obama. Because he knows how the system works. He knows how to govern and work with other people. Which is what moderation is about.

And on the other side, you have someone and his followers and colleagues over at MSNBC and a whole host of Far-Left publications, who have very little if any experience in government, especially Congress, who’ve spent very little time outside of Washington, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, traditional Far-Left areas of the country. Critiquing Senator Sanders for not being the class warrior and race baiter and spending his speech speaking up for groups that they feel deserve special treatment from government.

Bernie Sanders, is a radical by most political standards in America. He’s not dangerous, or a bad person by any definition. The opposites are true, but he’s radical because of what size and role he would give the U.S. Government. And yet, he’s moderate and even centrist compared with his supporters on the Far-Left and the Tea Party on the Right.