Andy Hailey: ‘As A Progressive, Am I Too Extreme?’

Source:Slide Player- The Progressive Era in America. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of economic injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their belief that only the wealthy deserve government aid?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of social injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their denial of sexual diversity?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of racial injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their arrogant belief in white supremacy?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will unabashedly speak out against all forms of environmental injustice spawned by right-wing extremists and their desire for the end times or getting filthy rich in case they are not among the chosen?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect all living and breathing citizens from the economic, social, racial, and environmental injustices committed by man-made, heartless, and greedy entities with their immoral, excessive, power and pursuit of profit without regard to harming citizens?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their freedoms to choose, like voting and medical procedures, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally empower living and breathing citizens such that their abilities, like critical thinking, are maximized?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from medical bankruptcy caused by death panels protecting health insurance profits?

Am I too extreme to want representatives who will make a moral commitment to equally protect living and breathing citizens such that they are free from sacrifice in never-ending wars for corporate enrichment?

Am I too extreme to want today’s version of FDR’s second bill of rights written into law?”

From Andy Hailey 

"Progressivism is a way of thinking that holds that it is possible through political action for human societies to improve over time. As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization.[1] Adherents to this way of thinking hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society.[2]

Early-20th century progressivism included support for compulsory sterilization, the temperance movement, American engagement in World War I, and the creation of and participation in the League of Nations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by economic inequality; inadequately regulated monopolistic corporations; and conflict between workers and elites, arguing that corrective measures were needed.[9]

In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism.[10][11][12][13][14]. In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions." 

From Wikipedia

This Andy Hailey piece, could’ve been written by Bernie Sanders today, George McGovern 30-50 years ago, Henry Wallace 70 years ago, David McReynolds or Eugene Debs ( multiple time Socialist Party nominees for president ) in McReynolds case 10, 20, 30 years ago. In Debs case 100 years ago. Socialists and socialism aren’t new to America. 

Socialism didn’t arrive in America when Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving in the House for 16 years before the Senate. He’s not the only Socialist in Congress and never has been. He’s just the only self-described Socialist in Congress, ( but not the only current Socialist in Congress ) and he’ll only have that title until the end of this Congress. In the next Congress, starting in January, we could see 10-20 new self-described Socialists in the House alone.

What’s new is that we’re now seeing Socialists coming out of the political closet and making public that they’re Socialists. Democratic Socialists in most cases, but if you look at Far-Left like ANTIFA, they’re proud self-described Communists. 

It’s not extreme to want a country or world where there’s no racism, poverty, selfishness, crime, violence, war, anything else that’s bad about the world. Overly romantic, overly idealistic you wouldn’t have much trouble making the case for that. 

But, anyone who lives in the real world (and just doesn't come down for a visit) has to deal with both good and bad. Things that are good about people and society and things that are bad. That’s called life and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to improve not only your own life, but the society around you. Overly romantic and idealistic sure, but there’s really nothing wrong with that so long as you keep at least one foot on Planet Earth and stay in touch with reality. As least in writing or texting, or email distance.

But, if you’re someone who believes in making the world better, the question is how you go about doing that. Now, if you’re an actual Progressive ( and not a closeted Socialist instead )  it’s not a question if you want to make the world better or not, but how to go about doing that. 

When I think of Progressives, I think of people who want to make the country or world better through government action. Not people who are looking to create a Planet Utopia where there’s no such thing as poverty, racism, or violence, but people who want to use public policy to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and create genuine, noticeable progress with public policy. Not people who are looking to outlaw everything they don’t personally like including personal wealth. Or create a central government so big that personal decision-making and individualism become extinct. But people who want to improve the lives of their fellow people through public policy.

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists including Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, and even Communists tend to all get linked into the same political faction as if they’re all the same people with 6 different labels. When the fact is Liberals just by themselves are different from the other factions: 

For example an actual Liberal such as myself believes in liberal democracy. Communists, don’t believe in democracy at all especially liberal democracy. 

Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats believe in democratic socialism and social democracy. 

Progressives in the actual sense, are the most interesting in all of these political factions, because they’re the least ideological and most pragmatic of all these groups. They believe in liberal democracy, but they also believe in conservative values like property rights, the rule of law, and other values like that.

Progressives, are people who believe in progress through government action, but limited government action. They’re not looking to create a government that is so big that it essentially takes over the society and is able to manage people’s personal as well as economic affairs for them. 

Progressives, are people who believe in freedom, but that it should be for everyone and not just for people who are born to wealth or have a certain ethnic or racial background. And want to use government to improve the lives of people who are struggling so they can have the same freedom as people who are already doing well in society. These are the main differences between a Progressive and a Socialist of any background. Which is Progressives, believe in progress through limited government,. Socialists, don’t believe in limited government and base their ideology around a big central government and what it can do for the people.

A&E: American Hoggers- Krystal Campbell & Lea Penick: 'Are Angry About Tom Using a Gun'

Source:Christian Cravens- Lea Penick and Krystal Campbell on American Hoggers. 

Source:The Action Blog

From Wikipedia 

"In this scene from the episode Swamped, Krystal and Lea have a talk with Tom after he shoots a hog without warning them."

Source:A&E- Krystal Campbell on American Hoggers. 

 

From A&E

I got into American Hoggers myself accidentally I guess in the spring of 2013 when I was home on a Sunday and flipping around on the tube. And I saw these two very young, beautiful, and very cute women ( Krystal Campbell and Lea Penick ) doing what I guess would be traditionally male oriented work ( at least straight male ) not just working on a ranch, but doing the actual hunting themselves. Which is what they do for a living hunting feral hogs that represent a real threat to the farm and ranch land in Central Texas and got into this show very quickly because of these two women and what they do on this show and then Katie Ball comes on who is hired by Krystal's father ( Jerry Campbell ) to be another hunter for him and his ranch. Who is even cuter than Krystal and Lea.

As far as this particular show: I'm not a hunter at all not even an amateur hunter and certainly can't speak as an expert to what they were doing here, but I think the ladies have a point here. Shooting hogs with no warning while they're people around and not knowing exactly who you're shooting at, looks to me at least like trying to land a 747 blindfolded with your eyes close during a Chicago blizzard.

I understand all about self-survival and it's either the hog or me, the hog is going down, but firing into bushes like that and not knowing if they're actual humans there, is literally shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. I could just imagine Tom's excuse here if he had shot Krystal or Lea by accident and it might sound something like this: "Hey, I was shooting at the hog, not you. At least I didn't get hurt." You can easily see why the ladies would be angry here. 

Susan Hayward: The Working Girl

Source:AZ Quotes- Susan Hayward, on reaching the mountaintop in Hollywood. 

Source:The Daily Review

"What was your favorite Susan Hayward quote? 'Like' and leave a comment below, then jump over to:Quote Tank  and make a list of your favorites, so you'll never forget!"

Source:Quote Tank- One of Susan Hayward's movies 

From Quote Tank

There are a lot of rags to riches success stories in America which is one thing that makes America great as well as exceptional. America tends to get stereotyped as a rich country that's dominated by rich people who control so much of the country's wealth and that all Americans are rich. And if you're from a third world country and grew up poor before you came to America, you might believe that as well at least before you get to America.

But the fact is most Americans aren't wealthy. Most of us aren't poor either, but a lot of come from either middle class or working class families which is the overwhelming majority of Americans. Americans who aren't poor or who are hungry, but struggle to survive, work hard, to pay their bills. Can't afford to send their kids to college which means their kids have to work through college or get student loans, or both especially if they're not on scholarship.

Susan Hayward growing up in New York City in the 1920s and 30s didn't even have it that great. She came literally from nothing where her parents couldn't afford to feed all of their kids at the same time. Sometimes couldn't afford to even do laundry, couldn't replace shoes and other clothing that were falling apart. What Susan Hayward did have going for her growing up and as a very young woman was that she hated poverty and wanted to escape it. As well as a talent and desire to succeed that would allow to her live well for the rest of her life.

When I think of Susan Hayward, I think of President Richard Nixon and his background growing in rural and poor California in the 1920s when a lot of America was actually doing very well economically, but where most of that economic wealth was in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and other big cities not in rural California hundreds of miles out of Los Angeles.

I think of President Nixon giving his farewell address where he says: "Only when you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." President Richard Nixon from August, 1974 the day he left the White House after resigning the presidency, because of is involvement in the Watergate coverup.

Susan Hayward, was able to reach the mountaintop in Hollywood and to go down as not just one of the greatest actresses in her generation, but who ever worked in Hollywood because she grew up in the deepest valley in America. And to know what it was like to live on the bottom not knowing where your next meal was coming from and would you even have a home the next month.

Not that I would recommend poverty to anyone, but when you have nothing is does teach you a few positive things like how important hard work and success are and what it means to earn what you get. As well as always knowing at least in the back of your head what it's like to be poor and to know that you never want to live that way again.

Susan Hayward, is a great rags to riches story who came from nothing to become one of the best actresses that America have ever known and a story that we should all celebrate.

Vanity Fair: S.E. Cupp: 'The Conservative Coma'

Source:Vanity Fair- Take America back to the 1950s?

Source:The New Democrat

When I think of the Grand Ole Party ( and saying that with a straight face anymore is getting very difficult ) I think of a Conservative Republican Party that was hawkish when it came to not just Communists and communism, but authoritarians and authoritarianism in general. That actually believed deficits matter. ( Which night sound crazy in the Trumpian Republican Party today ) That actually believed not only in entitlement reform, but that it was necessary. That if Republicans as a party are going to believe in and support programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that they should all be on sound fiscal footing and not blow up the deficit.

It was a party that believed that race, ethnicity, and gender didn't matter. Which why it supported the civil rights laws of the 1960s while opposing affirmative action in the 1970s, because the GOP believed that people shouldn't be promoted, demoted, empowered or denied simply because of their race, ethnicity or religion. A party that not only believed in immigration, but that anyone regardless of what country or region of the world, regardless of their race or ethnicity should be allowed to come to America legally if they work hard and contribute to America and obey our laws.

A party that was strong on defense, but didn't believe America shouldn't try to police the world and try force our values on other countries and tell them this is how they should govern themselves. For the most part this Republican value is still in place with the Neoconservatives thanks to the Iraq War losing almost all influence on Republican foreign and national security policy. A party that still believed in limited government even with the Christian-Right becoming a force in the party, but that still believed in that Barry Goldwater line that said he didn't want big government in our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, or classrooms.

That was the Republican Party that I grew up. I come from a Democratic family, but that's what the Republican Party use to be and what the Republican Party was when I grew up. And expect for the national debt and deficits, President Ronald Reagan believed in most if not all of those values. He did have his own big government issues with the national debt, deficits, and his expansion of the War on Drugs in the 1980s, but basically he represented and lead what was the Grand Ole Party very well in the 1980s. This is not the Republican Party today and I when I think of RINOS,  ( Republicans in name only ) I believe in so-called Republicans who don't even really believe in the concept of a republic and instead want to create a fundamentalist Christian society where their religious values are not only dominant, but become official government policy.

The GOP is not dead. You still have the S.E. Cupp's of the world, as well as Republicans like Margaret Hoover, Amanda Carpenter, Tara Setmeyer, Bill Kristol, and a few others at CNN. They're still some GOP Republicans in Congress like outgoing Senator's Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan, incoming Senator Mitt Romney once he takes his Senate seat in the next Congress. But the Republican Party today is now the Donald Trump Nationalist Party. That puts groups of Americans against each other and no longer preaches about America being the city on a shining hill. And instead preaches that, "you're either with us or against us." Meaning you either support President Donald Trump, or you're Un-American and a RINO.

The Republican or Nationalist or RINO Party ( depending on how you want to label the modern Republican Party ) is now the party that represents the 1950s that was reborn in this century, but come from the 1950s culturally and ideologically. Where women's place in the world is at home, African-Americans and other non-Anglo-Saxons are second-class citizens if citizens at all. Gays are either locked in the closet, or locked in prison or some mental institution.

Today's so-called Republican party is really now an anti-conservative party, because they now believe character and morality doesn't matter just as long as you either serve, back, or defend President Donald Trump and the people who support the President. And that instead of defending and supporting the status quo and and conserving our individual rights which is what Conservatives are supposed to support, they now want to blow up the system and establishment and create a society and establishment that supports them and what they being the Trump Nationalist movement supports and believes in.

If you read Joshua Green's The Devil's Bargain, he reports and argues that the Republican Party Leadership and base got in bed with Donald Trump in 2015-16, because even though they were aware of all of Donald Trump's faults when it came to his lack of character and civility, that if he became President with a Republican Congress and Judiciary that they would get from a President Trump the things that they've been fighting for and wanted ever since Barack Obama became President. Things like deregulation, tax cuts, judicial appointments, a larger defense budget, etc. And that every time President Trump would do something that's unconventional ( to be kind ) or irresponsible, reckless, anti-conservative like appeasing dictators, they would just chalk it up to Donald Trump not being a conventional politician and new to Washington. Which is exactly what' we've seen the last two years with Donald Trump as President.

The GOP is not dead, but they're not unfortunately now a small faction of the Republican Party. The never-trumpers are what left of the Grand Ole Party. They're the Republicans ( not RINOS ) who believe that deficits and the national debt actually do matter, expect for perhaps Bill Kristol who is a Neoconservative. They don't just support entitlement reform, but believe it's necessary. They support legal immigration and believe it benefits the country and aren't worried about America losing it's European culture because they don't believe one race or ethnicity is superior to any other. They by enlarge don't want big government in our economic or personal affairs. I've argued for a while now that the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party, but  party with a conservative faction and the Donald Trump experiment and his movement make that argument for me perfectly.

Source:CNN: State of The Union- S.E. Cupp: Conservative Movement is in a Coma - CNN political analyst S.E. Cupp 

Chelsea Bain: Live and In Concert

Source: Chelsea Bain Facebook.

Source:The Action Blog

Chelsea Bain, is one of the cutest and sexiest country music performer performing and around today. Also one of the most beautiful and reminds me a lot of Miranda Lambert as far as her style of music  mixing in classic rock with her country sound. Mustang Sally, is obviously referring to the Ford Mustang and cars like that along with NASCAR racing is very popular with country culture with Americans who live in rural America, as well as Americans who live just outside of rural America. Who don't live in major cities or metros, but don't live in farmland either and kind of between a major city and in rural country where you won't see a city with even 50,000 people for hundreds of miles.

Source: Chelsea Bain Facebook

Ohio, is a state that has major cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, but they also have a lot of small towns in-between that aren't in the country, but are small industry, blue-collar, factory towns and towns like this are the heart of the Donald Trump base, but also the heart as well as rural America for country music. And these are towns where NASCAR will be very popular and where country music is very popular and where someone like a Chelsea Bain will be very popular and would perform there.

Source:Contact Music- Chelsea Bain in concert 

I'm not an expert on Chelsea Bain, but I love country girls and she's one of the best. I love the way they look, move, have this to be frank no bullshit mentality about them and don't take anything from anyone and are very honest with their music and use to express how they feel and how they're doing in life. I'm not a fan of country music, especially when it's pure country music, but when it's mixed with classic rock and blues or when it's just classic rock and blues, but from a country person standpoint and how they look at the world, you have a very good sound. And that is what you get from Chelsea Bain as well as her beautiful, adorable, and sexy appearance.