liberalduck-blog

[liberalduck-blog]

How do we keep getting tricked?

In one of the podcasts, Man of the People, we learn about a con man that started off as a doctor promoting his goat testicle surgery on men. John Romulus Brinkley became a beloved and trusted man in the plains of the midwest selling his “medical advice”, his own medicine products, promoting his surgeries, and so on, on his radio station. He made so much money from this attention and even made country music popular! Even with failed political attempts, losing his medical license in Kansas, and his lost radio waves in the state of Kansas does not stop this con man from becoming a man on the radio heard all the way in Philippines due to producing millions of watts from his over the border radio station. At the end of the podcast, the host asks one of the experts why people continue to fall for this trickery?

The answer he claimed was, “don’t you want to me saved?”  It is the tale of old that a group wants to be saved from something (ex: tyranny, famine, poverty, communism, immigration, the Jews, etc). He then continues to go on about how that people keep falling for the trap because they die off and can’t spread the memories of their mistakes. These men that want power and influence by fueling fear tactics and using fear tactics. We see this with Hitler, Fr. Coughlin, and Trump. I am not stating that these people were con men or greedy for power, but they were influential people that spoke well on the fears of their people and used it to their advantage to gain influence.

This leaves me with the question: Do people really not learn from history??!? Maybe I have a bias since I am a history major, but we saw how Hitler and other demagogues got their force and influence. Dr. Brinkley loved Hitler and his ideas and even brought it back to America after his vacation there. He then used his love for the Nazi ideals to talk to the Nazi Sympathizers and Anti-Semitics. Does a country that fights for truth, liberty, freedom, and the common rights fight so hard to silence the voices/powers of Jews, Immigrants, and POC? Some people would call Americans (specifically) “sheeple” by the way that we follow along to what we say and what we want to hear. I don’t blame them for this nickname. So do we actually learn from history or do we think we do? Are people so desperate for a way to be saved that they need to fall to the voices of a con man or fight a battle of pure hate created by fear? Do goat testicles actually help cure health problems in men? 

[liberalduck-blog]

Columbians (neo-Nazis) and the KKK were all too similar

I find it interesting with the consistency that Atlanta is full of an unique racist history. The KKK started in Atlanta and now we are reading about the movement of white people out of Atlanta. I notice a few similarities between these movements/causes. Specifically I noticed this with the Columbian group (the neo-nazi group) the most. 

The KKK started off as a fraternity group to unite in brotherhood and in their racist causes. They used lots of propaganda to have people join their group. I noticed that the Columbians had a similar idea. The founder of the Columbians, Homer Loomis, stated that there are three requirements of being a member, “Number one: Do you hate n**gers? Number two: Do you hate Jews? And number three: Have you got three dollars?” (The White Flight, pg. 45). They both were heavily fascist groups that openly hated African Americans and Jewish people. Loomis considered himself the “Hitler of America.” They both looked for fellowship and community of the white people in Atlanta (mainly the Columbians got the white outcasts of the community). The Columbians took a serious stance on protecting neighborhoods and the KKK has a very violent past during their origination to “protect”/attack people in the South that were not White. Loomis feared that the Black community would surround the white neighborhoods and felt that the best thing to do was to attack any suspecting black people walking on the street. (The White Flight, pg. 47-48). Many people felt like that the Colombians were a more rouge or kiddy version of the KKK, despite having the same enemies and hate movement. Dan Duke stated, “The Columbians are nothing but the juvenile delinquents of the KKK. They are one and the same, and ought to be tarred with the same tar!” (The White Flight, pg. 51). I agree to this statement. KKK seemed to be more of a broad group taking in many groups and workers in Atlanta and the Columbians seemed to be a smaller group focusing in a specific white neighborhood. To me it doesn’t matter the size of the group or if they were fully organized fascists, both groups were fighting to protect white supremacy and were willing to get violent and political at any costs. Hate is hate either way.

I will say that the Columbians and the KKK were fully conservative, even by southern standards. It is not fair to put extremists in the category of conservatives even if they wanted to protect past precedents and laws. They didn’t just want to hold the past, they wanted a sort of genocide or the removal or any potential threat and that is scary weather they were conservative or not.

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

How Christian are Conservatives?

I grew up in a time believing that Conservatives were more religious, and that is still very much so the case. However, I wonder how Christian these Christians are? I seem to notice some hypocrisy with some Conservative Christians. Nancy MacLean seems to notice this too in her book, Democracy in Chains. 

“In the view of the libertarian economist, Jesus was mistaken. Conscripting the Good Samaritan story, [James] Buchanan made his case that ‘modern man [had] ‘gone soft’: he lacked the ‘stargetic courage’ needed to restore the market to its proper ordering. By this logic, what seemed to be the ethical thing to do -- help someone in need -- was not after all, the correct thing to do, because the assistance would encourage the recipient to ‘exploit’ the giver rather than to solve his own problems. Buchanan used as an analogy the spanking of children by parents; it might hurt, but it taught ‘the fear of punishment that will inhibit future misbehavior.’

Similarly, ‘the potential parasite’ needed curbing to prevent efforts to ‘deliberately exploit’ society’s ‘producers.’ More than any other piece, this article captured the stark morality of libertarianism, offering, as it were, the cause’s prescription for how America’s third century could reverse the ‘soft’ errors of its second. The trick, though, was to figure out how to bind the foolish Samaritan, qua government, from giving out perverse incentives -- how to shackle the Samaritan, so to speak. As Buchanan noted in conclusion, ‘welfare reform’ was ‘only one of many applications, and by no means the most important.’ It was true: his eyes were set on much bigger game.” (Democracy in Chains, pg. 143).

I cannot speak for all conservatives and I cannot say this is how all conservatives are, but this completely goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ himself and it could be considered heresy. If “Jesus was mistaken” why do many conservatives and liberatarians still use Christanity was a motive for their politics and policies? How does someone preach that they are a son or daughter of God, but will not help others politics wise, but will preach to help thy neighbor? 

Jesus taught to help and love one another. To be frank, Jesus was a communist hippie preaching love, peace, and to help one another. It seems that many conservative/libertarian tactics from the beginning have been promoting to help yourself and your own family and that will help everyone else. According the Neoclassical microeconomic theory, a market is more efficient if everyone acts in their own self interest. This goes completely against the main religion of the United States.

Does leaving thy neighbor alone and leaving them to thee own business make them a follower of the Bible and the teachings of the Lord and Savior? Are conservatives hypocrites or do they believe that one helps another by self interest? Do conservatives use religion as a mask for their actual motives and interests? Who actually is following the bible? What James Buchanan in the 1970s seems to be fighting for is the complete opposite of Christianity and all of its teachings. 

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

[liberalduck-blog]

Does History Repeat Itself?

Have humans learned from their mistakes? According to the JBS, they have not at all.

I am a history major and an economics minor and almost a classics minor. I have loved Ancient Greek (especially) and Ancient Roman history, but I love modern world history. The JBS Blue Book is perfect for a combination for my 3 loves. Section 2 is the best representation of this mixture. 

The entire argument of this book is that Collectivism/Communism share a common starting letter with Cancer. To the John Birch Society, collectivism is a cancer that has hurt all parts of known history; mainly in Europe and in the Near East. The section starts by talking about Spengler and his belief in the decline of Western Europe and the fall into socialism. Then begins the comparisons of the Ancient Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. There are 2 main arguments from the continuing comparisons. 1) A new society will grow from the weakness of a past power and the cycle never ends. Greece mythologically came from two Greek warriors fighting in Troy. Greece was the powerhouse and then Rome and then Western Rome fell. And so on and so forth. 2) All powers fall once they start the route on collectivism. According to the JBS (which I personally disagree), Greece began to fall once Pericles ruled. Rome fell once the Goths were allowed into society and then overthrew the Western Roman system. Diocletian and Constantine I were leaders that controlled too much of politics. Marxism and Bismark ruined Germany. Western Europe became too close-knit around the Napoleonic Age and the royalines were too connected. America started to deteriorate once they joined WW1 and FDR only cemented the country on the path towards collectivism.

The JBS is mainly concerned that America went from being the best free market possible in the world, but once Woodrow Wilson pulled the country out of isolationism, it was all downhill from then. America was created to escape from the failures of England and Western Europe, and it was problem for the free market once we reunited with our ancestors. They compared it to a parent dying of cancer and a child hopping into that death bed to only get cancer. Now that isn’t scientifically how cancer works, but the idea is that once we go back to our ancestors that failed then we shall fail.

 I bet there are mainly JBS followers that may see that about politics today. Have the democrats built up the government too much and have controlled too much that America is falling apart? Is Trump actually helping save the country by going back to isolationism slowly and protecting the economy? I personally disagree with the JBS and these questions, but I love these comparisons of the ancient world to now. 

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

I see where my parents get it from

Growing up my parents use to be Republicans but voted democrat since 2006 and finally registered as democrats in 2014. I never understood it when they said they “socially democrat and fiscally conservative”. My parents’ were raised very conservative suburbs of Washington and Southern California. The 1956 Platform clearly defines the time my parents were born into (My dad was born in 1957 and my mom in 1959).

The 1956 Republican Party is an example of irony and contradictory views. Republicans supported the movement for progressive policies in aspects of civil rights and equality for gender, growth of public highways and postal services, improving Social Security and VA services, assisting small businesses, strengthen the Federal-State Employment Service and welfare, creating more schools, adding more to the military, loans to farmers, and so on, while fighting for lowering the debt and taxes and fighting for a free economy. In the Business and Economic policy section, the GOP stated, “We have eliminated a host of needless controls. To the meet the immense demand of our economy, we have initiated the largest highway, air, and maritime programs in history, each sound financed.” As my Dad would say, “Huh?!” To me this is rather contradictory to causes and goes against the fight for conservatism for the entire history of America. How is it the same the section that the GOP is getting rid of barriers of of entry and exit into a free market while constructing the largest public road system and building up a huge military? If I was put in 1956, I would probably vote for the Republicans because they are pushing for progressive movements that help build America and seem to be slightly continuous of the Lord and Savior of America, FDR. Supporting the funding for Social Security, improving the environment, pushing for higher education, etc. are something middle America craves for at this time and what the modern Left want now. 

My Father’s Father was a Jewish and Republican World War 2 veteran that raised his family in Southern California Suburbia. My grandpa was a huge support of General Patton, John McCain, both Bushes, and basically every republican since he could vote till his death 3 years ago. My Grandpa politically fought for lower taxes, but his entire life was made because of progressive policies done in the late 40′s and 50′s. My Grandpa voted for a party that was majority Protestants. My Mother’s Father was a ex-Catholic and extreme conservative that helped legislators in Washington State create equal pay for equal work, while believing a woman’s place is the kitchen. He preached that getting a business degree or engineering degrees were the only way to have real success. My grandpa avoided fighting in the Korean War because of bad vision and became one of the biggest landlords in Washington. His 7th wife secretly helped campaign for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. His education in college that led to his work in government and landlording wouldn’t happen without the opportunities for higher education being so affordable. 

Any reader of the 1956 GOP Platform must have some questions. Where Republicans actually conservative after Eisenhower’s first term? Where they conservative only on business and economic reasons? Did the people of the 1950′s push away the fact 90% of their income went to taxes to pay for everything, yet voted for very progressive ideas? For a strong central government? Did the definition of conservatism change? Was Eisenhower a freak case? 

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

Protect the rich or protect the free market?: Conservatism in the 1930s

Kim Phillips-Fein writes a timeline of different conservative leaders and thinkers during the time of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Different groups and leaders fought for different purposes during the time. Some claimed to protect the free market, some claimed to protect the rich, and some claimed to protect the system of old.

Phillips-Fein presents the idea that during the 1920′s business men were heros in the political world. This would make sense, because the businesses were the job providers; especially those who controlled the monopolies and the large businesses. Dynasties, like the DuPonts, had a huge influence on politics because of their economic importance. Phillips-Fein, and many other historians, would argue that the Depression was a crisis of politics and economics. It exposed corruption and lack of trust for political leaders. It shook the views of economic understanding. It affected all classes. 

The chapter goes on to state that World War 2 was the savior from the depression. The major achievement of the New Deal was of change in social convention. The New Deal brought Social Security, more rights for unionization, Public Works construction projects to create bridges/roads/dams/energy plants/etc., unemployment insurance, etc. These were concepts that scared the rich and powerful businessmen. 

The Liberty League, started by the DuPonts, was an organization to unite all people and to stop major government involvement. It was similar to Bailey’s “Conservative Manifesto.” To them, government involvement should only be when absolutely necessary and the protection of privatization should happen. The group was meant for the people, but was basically funded mostly by large number of rich people. “More than half of the leagues funds for 1935 came from fewer than two dozen bankers, industrialists, and businessmen, and various members of the DuPont family contributed 30 percent of the total. In 1936, a full two thirds of the organization’s money came from thirty men giving $5,000 each.” (Invisible Hands, pg. 12). NAM fought for the sole purpose to preventing unionization of labor. It was fully out to protect businesses. The group spent $1.5 million on campaigning their cause of promoting industry and thanking the businesses that provided jobs. (Invisible Hands, pg. 14). Read was a property salesman out in California. He was a forerunner and heavy pusher for cities all over metropolitan California to build housing the for the many migrants making their way West for work. He wanted to get executives of companies’ to speak against the potential future of the country and attack the policies starting to put in place. Mullendore wanted to organize businesses fight New Deal and only New Deal. The problem of many of these groups were unorganization and a fight of pure reaction to New Deal progress/policy. 

This makes me wonder that were they actually out to protect the free market or protect the power of the rich? Is taxation left? If so, for who? Do Businesses actually want to help the people or their people? 

[liberalduck-blog]

One of the quotes from Linda Gordon’s book, The Second Coming of the KKK, really stood out to me for today’s reading. 

“Brandolini’s law, developed in the contest of twenty-first century social media, is equally applicable to 1920s Klan-speak, ‘The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it’. Conspiracy theories are the opposite of institutional, economic, or social-historical analyes, which examine the long-term behavior of known institutions, as recorded in verifiable documents. Explanations based on conspiracies appear most commonly among out-of-power groups, of course, and elites commonly disdain them, but that is partly because elites may see discreet decision-making by small groups as legitimate leadership.” (Gordon, pg. 55).

Some people would argue that we are now in the time of “post-truth”, but what it seems is that this is another time of this concept. Modern day politics, from what is presented by Gordon, is not too different from the 1920s of the KKK presenting “alternative facts” or “fake news” to the public to gain attention, membership, and unity. The KKK rallied people that were white and protestant (the majority of america at the time) by the fact that of racism, xenophobia, sexism, and so on. Trump and his campaign team are not the first ones to create conspiracy theories and fake news to get the attention of the masses. Trump used social media and preaching to the “silent majority” to obtain his voting and his movement. The KKK produced movie, propaganda posters, and propaganda facts against the Jews, African Americans, and Catholics. Trump focused his attack on the Mexican and Muslim immigrants. The KKK attacked the religious beliefs the Catholics and the Jews. Many conservatives attack the beliefs of Islam. I could continue a longer list with comparison to attacks between the KKK and Trump. I want to publicize that Trump and the KKK are very similar and Trump is fueled with hate as the KKK. It is just interesting to see there are some similarities. 

I also want to point out that the KKK was also not the first group to spread hate and fake news. Many civilizations since ancient Egypt have put blame on the Jews or other religions for issues in a society. Jews were the common ones to blame. But Gordon also references some Klansmen arguing that Rome fell due to the impurity of having the Goths be in the Western Roman Empire. 

Overall, do conspiracy theories and attacking marginalized view cause hateful groups to gain membership, like the KKK or as some would argue Trump himself? I want to argue that conspiracy theories and fake news are tools to help promote a fear. They are fear tactics. They may be concerns of the party promoting them, but ultimately they are tools to scare people into “doing the right thing”. They are a way of creating a group, membership, and numbers for a movement. They are focused on the cause of their campaign and their views, and doing scare tactics will help them.

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

In today’s reading of the Cooper Union Address, I noticed a similarity to the response of Mike Pence after the 2016 election and Hamilton the Musical message towards him. 

In the Cooper Union Address, there is a section about people being allowed to believe that there are laws set by the Founding Fathers stating that the federal government can’t forbid slavery everywhere in the country. To quote, “If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can.” (Lincoln, pg. 7). He continues on to say that it isn’t fair to push one’s opinions on those who aren’t able to educated or have access to understand the laws of country. This piece of the speech was very interesting, because it was right after Lincoln was roasting some of the ideas of the Democrats. Lincoln clearly means that one is free to speak and believe whatever on may believes, even if Lincoln himself believes is morally wrong. In the CNN article, it talks about how the cast of Hamilton was booing and sending a pointed message to the (at the time) Vice President elect. According to Pence, he didn’t mind it and it didn’t ruin his family time at the show. As he tried to tell to his daughter, this was their freedom and their opinion. Pence comments that he believes Trump will do a lot for the country and so one. This is probably what Douglas may have felt about Lincoln and vice versa.

There are a few differences between each statement. The main difference is that it is the Republican calling out the Democrat in the Cooper Union Address and the liberals are calling out the conservatives with the message. Another difference is that Lincoln is doing a formal speech against Douglas and other possible presidential candidates. Pence makes a few comments and Trump sends out some angry tweets that aren’t very professional. The cast of Hamilton was speaking from emotion and one a public stage for a lot of people (literally).  Lincoln writes a formal essay/speech However, both the address and the cast’s message are very good reactions to conservative views/ideals of that current election time. 

It still is fascinating that the reaction to be conservative is so fluid and doesn’t depend on party. Hamilton is a play about one of the most well known conservative American thinkers and policy makers; but it is representing very much so liberal ideals and appeals to liberals more. Lincoln is considered one of the greatest Republican figures and is being very open to others’ opinions and especially a time of racism and the brink of a war. Lincoln may fire shots and bash ideas of Douglas or of the southerners against being part of the Union, he still wants their ideas spoken and heard. All Lincoln asks for is unity with in the Union. 

-Andrew 

[liberalduck-blog]

This artist reimagines the national parks with climate change in 2050

America’s natural landscapes face a grim future with climate change. Now, artist Hannah Rothstein has depicted how national parks might appear 2050, in these reimagined versions of iconic posters made decades ago by the Works Progress Administration.

“I really tried to portray the environmental changes in a way that is not necessarily out of the bounds of possibilities. It was my goal to be true to the science, but also have a visual impact with a message,” Rothstein said.

Above, the quintessential cacti of Saguaro National Park resemble shriveled skeletons, while juicy succulents are replaced by bufflehead grass. Here’s why. If the Southwest warms 2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius, which could happen by 2050, the heat will dry out the saguaros. Prolonged fires will also likely increase in frequency in the Southwest – from once every five years to once a year. These conditions would be ideal for invasive grass species.

“A lot of people are nostalgic for a time when America was great. I want to call into question that time and the attitude and sentiment for what led the country to where it is,” Rothstein said.

Rothstein’s vision of Denali (Mount McKinley) National Park looks stark without permafrost – the layer of soil and surface ice that stays frozen all year. The Arctic is already “going through the most unprecedented transition in human history.” Villages built on permafrost are becoming swampy as the ice melts and the ground softens. Scientists predict a quarter of Alaska’s permafrost will disappear in less than a century.

This apocalyptic, fiery scene of Great Smoky Mountains National Park may not surprise some climate scientists, who anticipate that extreme weather events, like drought, will become more frequent and intense in the Southeast. Longer dry spells will make the region more vulnerable to wildfires, giving new meaning to the park’s name.

“I chose the National Parks for this project because they are the largest unfettered natural landscape that we have,” Rothstein said.

In Rothstein’s futuristic depiction, thinning mangrove forests, devoid of shorebirds, fill the Everglades National Park. Land once visible is submerged beneath water. Sea levels near Florida, which have risen eight inches since 1880, are already flooding low-lying regions. With global warming melting polar ice, this trend is expected to accelerate. Scientists predict that sea levels will rise 17 to 29 inches globally by 2100.

“It is my hope that this project causes people to think critically about the impact we are having and incite them to create change, whether on a individual level or governmental level,” Rothstein said.

–Instagram @hrothsteinart

[liberalduck-blog]

Class Discussion for 1/30/2018: Beecher, Tocqueville, and Cooper: American Women and Liberty

Catherine Beecher claims to be a believer and promoter of equality and democracy, while believes that women belong in the house. To her, Christianity and Democracy were equals, because the success of democracy depended on the Christian values. Beecher believed that women had a choice on being married or not. I will coin the phrase, “free market of marriage.”Basically, women did not have to be married. It was their choice if they wanted to become the “subordinate” or be free. When a woman does choose to take on the subordinating role of a wife, it is only natural and necessary. Subordination and obedience are necessary and are seen in so many aspects of life. A student is subordinate to the teacher. The child is subordinate to the parent. It is so inscribed in human society and to not have this hierarchy would lead to chaos. Note: Beecher was not married. Beecher believed that the jobs of a man and woman were equal in importance despite the difference in labor. She believed all women (meaning all social classes of women) should be educated on how to take care of a household or raise family and for the rich, still have their soft hands. To her, it was insulting and devalued the role of women if the rich were hiring servants and helpers to do the chores of the house. 

Tocqueville was a well liked Frenchman by Beecher. He was a French observer in early America (later arrested). He believed that the American political and social system was success by the fact that gender roles were separate. According to Tocqueville, in Europe the tasks of power of a marriage are so intertwined and non-democratic that “both” genders were devalued. In America, due to the tasks and roles being very separate, the country was valuing its women and was a freer society. 

Cooper argued that in a democracy the individual was powerless and was scared that the majority would make hasty decisions and vote in leaders that could easily be tyrants or make the wrong decisions for the nation and the people would not be protected. Because in a majority liberty was at threat, then democracy was a threat. He believed that the majority needed some sort of check to protect the privacy of everyone. To Cooper, the political world supersedes everything, expect family life, property, and the economy. One must know two things about Cooper: 1) He believed that the old aristocracy of a lord or aristocrat that saw an issue with the monarch’s view on liberty or justice was unjust, then that aristocrat would lead the people to be protected. In democracy, that wasn’t possible. 2) Liberty to him is to live a life without political oppression

From this class we now question social contract. Is freedom based on Cooper’s definition of Liberty? Is there an alternative to this freedom? Is everything everything coerced by something? Are humans vulnerable if there is no system of some sort controlling humans? Do institutions enable, restrain, or do both at the same time?

-Andrew   

[liberalduck-blog]

5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices are expected to skip President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address tonight. 

Justices not attending:

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who famously called Trump a “faker” in 2016, will be in Rhode Island attending two different events, one of which was scheduled back in August. Ginsburg, who attended all of President Barack Obama’s speeches, was also absent last year, when Trump made his first address to Congress just after his inauguration. 

— Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are not expected to be in attendance. Alito hasn’t gone to the event since Obama’s 2010 criticism. 

 — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy had long-standing plans for travel, the court said.

Justices planning to attend:

— Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan are scheduled to attend.

For more on how to watch Trump’s State of the Union address: http://cnn.it/2nt8dhV

[liberalduck-blog]

This is a poster from the 1920′s from the UK Labour Party. One of the things talked about in the Russell Kirk paper was how conservatives have a focus on security. To quote, “Whatever the blessings of Security, the thinking conservatives believes, it is possible to buy Security at too high of a price. And the price we are now in danger of paying is very high indeed. It is the price of manhood.” (The Idea of Conservatism, pg. 29). Socialism, to conservatives, is a heresy and a threat to the standards of before. It breaks security, costs too much, has the government impose too much, and to this is restrictive to the freedoms the conservatives are trying to protect.  Another huge issue with socialism at this context in time, was that this poster was presented during post WW1 and there was already a huge shift in conservatism and politics in the world. Socialism was a touchy subject and the politic of Europe and America were shaky on the subject. Socialism Overall, it is a change that is not welcome or wanted.

It is interesting looking at the how they presented the “inspectors” to have stern looks and large noses on this tiny person. It imposes the ideas that a socialist system is full of snitches or harsh regulators ready to control anything they would “smell” wrong. It also shows that socialists are against any personal freedoms by the way their eyes are shaped on the face squinting. 

-Andrew

[liberalduck-blog]

Conservatism has its vice, and that vice is selfishness...Radicalism, too, has its vice, and that vice is envy.

Russel Kirk

[liberalduck-blog]

Talking about priority talk points

[liberalduck-blog]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PBS News (@newshour)

“Your silence and your amnesia is complicity,” Sen. @corybooker (D-NJ) told Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after she told lawmakers earlier that she “did not hear” President Trump use vulgar language when referring to African countries. #politics (at United States Capitol)

[liberalduck-blog]

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake took to the Senate floor to rebuke President Donald Trump for his repeated attacks on the truth as well as his colleagues for failing to be a check on Trump.

Flake compared Trump’s attacks on the news media to the rhetoric of late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

“An American president who cannot take criticism — who must constantly deflect and distort and distract, who must find someone else to blame — is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the President adds to the danger,” Flake says.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders responded to Flake, “He’s criticizing the President because he has terrible poll numbers and he is looking for some attention. I think it’s unfortunate.”

Read more: http://cnn.it/2DkT7WJ