Emperor Tigerstar: Huey Long- 'The Dictator of Louisiana'

Source:Emperor Tigerstar- If the title fits.

Source:The New Democrat

"See the rise and fall of the Kingfish Governor of Louisiana. He's more than a Kaiserreich meme, and has left quite a lasting legacy."

 From Emperor Tigerstar

 I mentioned in my Huey Long piece last week that Huey Long had a lot in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today as it created to wealth redistribution and a socialist populism that was about high taxation on the wealthy to be used to help everyone else. And all of that is true, but as I also mentioned last week Huey and Bernie aren't ideological twins.

 Senator Sanders at least as far as how he speaks, what he proposes, and his political positions all suggest that he's a Democratic Socialist. Governor Long, you could call him a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, but even as the guy in this video admits to Governor Long was essentially the dictator of Louisiana as far as how he was able to centralize a lot of state power for himself, but then the guy in this video says that Governor Long used all of this state power to benefit the people of Louisiana, not himself necessarily.

 I'm going to argue that Huey Long wasn't a Communist even though he did have dictatorial socialist leanings as Governor. But only because he didn't close down private media organizations and churches, banks, that sort of thing where people can get to together and create their own private power. But he did centralize a lot of power within his own state to the point that if you tried to cross him, he could hurt your badly politically and professionally. And to work for his Administration in Louisiana, you have to donate part of your state salary to his political machine in Louisiana. At one point Huey, was both Governor of Louisiana and then U.S. Senator from Louisiana. Even when he was in Congress, he still had a lot of power in Louisiana.

 A better way to describe Huey Long is say that he was a crook, but with good intentions and as long as you didn't try to cross him, life could be very good for you in Louisiana. And again Huey wasn't a Communist, but he did have things in common with Communists and Socialist dictators around the world. People who come into power promising the populist that he alone can make their lives better if they just give him all of this power. ( Remind you of any current President today? )

 We saw this with Fidel Castro in Cuba, Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Men who have way too much self-confidence and probably couldn't look up or define words like modesty and humility even if they saw them in a dictionary. Which is dangerous for any society to have which are leaders who have so much faith in themselves, because they see themselves as invincible and that it's somehow treason for anyone to even try to question them. And when someone does that, they face cruel repercussions. That's the type of leader or Socialist that I see Huey Long as.

Senator Huey Long: Huey Long Collection- Share Our Wealth Societies: 2/23/1934

Source:Share The Wealth- Governor Huey Long, D, Louisiana: the Bernie Sanders of his era?

Source:The New Democrat

"Huey Long speaking with John A Simpson, President of the National Farmer's Union, in 1934.

FORMER LOUISIANA GOVERNOR HUEY LONG, CALLED "THE KINGFISH", SPEAKING WITH JOHN A. SIMPSON, PRESIDENT NATIONAL FARMER'S UNION, ON SHARE THE WEALTH MOVEMENT"

From Senator Huey Long

Governor Huey Long's Share The Wealth Proposal

Source:Wikipedia

1. "No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million and $8 million. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.[citation needed]

2. Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5.1 million.[citation needed]

3. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 300 times the size of the average family income.[citation needed]

4. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.[citation needed]

To balance agricultural production, the government would preserve/store surplus goods, abolishing the practice of destroying surplus food and other necessities due to lack of purchasing power.[citation needed]

5. Veterans would be paid what they were owed (a pension and healthcare benefits).[citation needed]

Free education and training for all students to have equal opportunities in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.[citation needed]

6. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise."

I'm not saying that Huey Long both as Governor Long and then later Senator Long was the George McGovern, or take it up today and call him the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren of his era, but only because Huey Long wasn't so much a Democratic Socialist as he was just just purely a Socialist: someone who mixed both democratic and authoritarian views into his own politics. He was more like a Nicholas Maduro ( the President of Venezuela ) than Neville Chamberlain ( Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 1930s ) as someone who believed in democratic socialism economically, but had authoritarian views when it came to how he governed.

Governor Huey Long, was as close to a dictator that we've ever had in this country when he was Governor of Louisiana and had so much power over the government there and didn't believe in checks and balances and separation of powers. But on economic policy he was someone who had strong populist tendencies and someone who wasn't a big city leftist or populist, but someone who could appeal to rural voters in the deep South, because of how poor they were and that he spoke about their poverty and promised to get them out of it with his economic populism that we would call democratic socialism today. Which is what he has in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today.

What Governor Long has in common with Senator Sanders is what again what was called economic populism in the 1930s that we call democratic socialism today:  Bernie, doesn't call his economic agenda Share The Wealth, but that's probably more for political reasons than ideological. He's already a self-described Democratic Socialist and one of just a few in Congress today and doesn't want to be confused with Socialists who are even to the Left of him. But ideologically Bernie's vision of democratic socialism is very similar to Huey's when it comes to money and wealth. They would both essentially outlaw wealth in this country and use that money for their social welfare agenda.

Huey Long in the 1930s, was talking about old age pensions and what we call today a national basic income where every American would be given a financial allowance in this country to make sure that they don't have to live in poverty. Bernie Sanders, believes that every single American has a right to go to college and get health insurance and health care provide to them from the government. And that the wealthy should be forced to pay for all of these services for everyone else. What Huey and Bernie have in common politically, is that they're both anti-wealth and economic independence. And see it as the role of the U.S. Government to guarantee every single America and basically national income and quality living in this country.

Vanity Fair: Alison Klayman- 'How Steve Bannon Manipulates His Followers'

Source:Vanity Fair- "How Steve Bannon manipulates his followers"

Source:The New Democrat

"Director Alison Klayman spent 13 months documenting former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon for her documentary The Brink. Alison explains the ways he manipulates his followers by spreading conspiracies and sowing doubt in the media. Watch The Brink, out in theaters March 29th."

 From Vanity Fair

 I think Steve Bannon might say himself that he's not a Conservative, but a Nationalist. It's not conservative values that Bannon represents at least in the sense that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and everything that it represents and even conservative values in a cultural sense, but it's his nationalist, tribalist, and cultural values that he represents which trump's everything ( no pun intended ) including character, morality and his personal values. Steve Bannon is about himself and his tribe versus everyone and everything else and as long as you're on his team and part of his political and cultural tribe, everything else be dammed just as long as you play ball with him and his allies.

 Alison Klayman, in her piece mentioned Judge Roy Moore who was an Alabama judge who ran for U.S. Senate from Alabama in 2017 in that special election and lost essentially because of his lack of character and his immorality and the credible sexual harassment allegations that were made against him. And said that Steve Bannon is not a stupid man ( as if anyone thinks that he is ) and she suggested that he probably believed the allegations that were made against Judge Moore, but stuck with Moore because Moore was part of his team and the broader Trump movement in America. Donald Trump's presidential campaign from 2015-16 is another great example of that. President Trump's base has stuck with the President even with everything that he's done and said that no other Republican President and mainstream Republican in Congress would every consider doing and saying, because Donald Trump is part of their team.

When you become so partisan and even so hyper-partisan and angry in politics where the other party is not longer your opponents, but your enemies to the point that you don't even see them as Americans, but traitors and invaders, everything is about winning and protecting your side. And you put no limits onto what you'll do to win and protect your team, because you're so fearful of the other team winning, coming in, and taking your power away from you. Which is what Steve Bannon and these other hyper-partisan hard-core Nationalists on the Far-Right in America represent. The great Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi had the great quote: "winning isn't everything, but it's the only thing" the New-Right have taken that line way out of context and put it over everything else in society like morality, character, and honesty.

History: 'How Did Socialism Become a Dirty Word in America?'

Source:History- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) The Leader of the Socialist Party in America?

Source:The New Democrat

"Before it became a dirty word, socialism was relatively popular in the United States. So, what happened? #HistoryChannel

Subscribe for more HISTORY:

http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Read More: http://po.st/socialist_party

 Check out exclusive HISTORY content:

 Website - http://www.history.com

 /posts

 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/History

 Twitter - https://twitter.com/history"

From History

Source:Socialist Alternative- “Movie Review: American Socialist: The Life and Times of Eugene Victor Debs”

From Wikipedia

"Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American socialist, political activist, trade unionist, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.[1] Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States."

Source:National Review- “Henry Wallace: Unsung Hero of the Left”

From Wikipedia

"Henry Agard Wallace (October 7, 1888 – November 18, 1965) was an American politician, journalist, and farmer who served as the 11th U.S. secretary of agriculture, the 33rd vice president of the United States, and the 10th U.S. secretary of commerce. He was also the presidential nominee of the left-wing Progressive Party in the 1948 election."

Source:AZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said: socialism and liberalism have never been the same things 

From Wikipedia

"Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was an American Presbyterian minister who achieved fame as a socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America."

Source:Bill Moyers- “George McGovern in 1972. (Photo courtesy of University of Houston)”

From Wikipedia

"George Stanley McGovern (July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012) was an American historian, author, U.S. representative, U.S. senator, and the Democratic Party presidential nominee in the 1972 presidential election."

Source:Imgur- “Bernie Sanders, Socialist (Communist) who believes this list of lies, might as well give me your second house because I do not have one, …”

From Wikipedia

"A self-described democratic socialist and progressive, Sanders supports labor rights and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.[4] He advocates for universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, as well as tuition-free tertiary education. On foreign policy, Sanders broadly supports reducing military spending, pursuing more diplomacy and international cooperation, and putting greater emphasis on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements."

The video makes it clear why the words socialist and socialism are unpopular. Everything from the end of World War I and the start of the Soviet Union with their communist revolution in Russia, to Senator Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaigns today. With the start of the Cold War with Russia after World War II and the so-called red scare, with Congress first with the House of Representatives in the late 1940s and the later with the Senate in the 1950s investigating Socialists and Communists in the U.S. Government and the rest of the country.

Before the rise of the Millennial Generation in America, when Americans thought of socialist or socialism they automatically assumed people were talking about Communists and other leftist authoritarians, wether they be in Russia or anywhere else in the world. And Americans regardless if they're on the Right or Left in America and somewhere in between tend to hate authoritarianism. Even self-described Socialists in America whether they're Bernie Sanders or others don't view themselves as Communists or other leftist authoritarians. They might have a hard time speaking ill of Communists and communism and leftist authoritarianism whether it's in Cuba or Venezuela, but they themselves are not Communists.

But when Millennials think of Socialists, they think of politicians that are going to give them a lot of free stuff ( another way of saying welfare programs ) like health care, health insurance, college, day care, etc. And take on greed in corporate America, as well as tax the rich, but not take heir property away and force them to work in work camps and other horrible places that we saw in Soviet Russia and in North Korea today. Whether you view socialist and socialism as either positive or negative, a lot of that is generational. If you grew up during the Cold War and in my case at the end of the Cold War just starting high school when the Cold War came to an end in the early 1990s, you're probably not a fan of Socialists and socialism, because you tend to think of Communists and communism. But if you weren't even born until the 1990s, when you think of Socialists and socialism, you tend to think of Europe and the social democracies there. Which is a helluva lot different from the communist states.

Communism, really was the biggest threat to America, American freedom, our individualism and individual rights in the 20th Century. And of course a lot of Americans in and out of government went too far with their anti-communism and outing people simply for having Far-Left beliefs whether they were Democratic Socialists or Communists. But the Cold War really was about liberal democracy versus communism and was a war that America, Britain, and Europe really had to win.

And because of this good people were put down and denied access in society simply because of their Far-Left beliefs to the point that American Leftists were scared as hell to ever be tabled as a Socialist ( even if they were ) for fear that being known as a Socialist could ruin their careers and lives. And preferred other political labels like liberal or progressive even though their own politics was much further left than both liberal and progressive. Which is how socialist and socialism became dirty words in America, because Americans didn't want their lives ruined simply because of their socialist politics.

The WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- American Socialism: ‘Equally Empowers & Protecting All US Citizens’

Source:Volitairenet- A little history of socialism in America.

Source:The New Democrat

"(A cycle of building, destroying, and now renewing/expanding)
Even before FDR’s socially responsible New Deal and laws passed since, corporations and excessively wealthy individuals have been stealthily working to put our democracy in chains by neutering the Federal government, eliminating majority rule, and defunding our social programs."

From The WAWG Blog

Source:PBS NewsHour- When the Socialist Party was  a major factor in American politics.

"In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports."

From PBS NewsHour


What Andy Hailey laid out in his piece was American progressivism which the New Deal, Great Society, Eisenhower’s national infrastructure program, the civil rights law, the Nixon environmental laws. Things that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for when he was President and after his presidency, that President Woodrow Wilson also advocated for when he was President when it came to the safety net in this country.

Source:Wikipedia- Democratic Socialists of America 

I’ve blogged about this many times before, but progressivism is not the same as socialism however you define socialism. A lot of aspects of socialism are actually very regressive when you’re talking about communism or Neo-Communism that you see in Venezuela, where the national state isn’t in complete control of the country unlike in Cuba.

Progressives, believe in the private market and private enterprise, free trade, the rule of law, progressive taxation, but not universal high taxation, fiscal responsibility even,  ( President Lyndon Johnson had a balanced budget in 1968 ) but they also believe in a social insurance net for people who fall on hard times. The safety net from the Progressive, is different from the welfare state of the Socialist who says that all employee benefits should be provided for by the government, instead of employers. The Progressive, just wants public assistance programs like Unemployment for people who truly need it. Unlike the Socialist who wants welfare programs to be universal regardless of income.

Regardless of what you hear from the so-called mainstream media today when they’re talking about Congressional Democrats and other leftist Democrats that they call Progressives, whether it’s Bernie Sanders or Alexandria O. Cortez, or any other members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, these people are Socialists, not Progressives. They believe that American progressivism hasn’t gone far enough and we now need a welfare state and government big enough to take care of the people. Which is different from progressivism which advocates for a social insurance system for the people who truly need it. While at the same time we encourage Americans to be as economically independent as possible so the resources are always there for the people who truly need it.

“In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports.”

FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion

Source:FOX Business- Our national credit card debt. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London."

From FOX Business

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let's hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you're death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn't hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: "those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America's future." The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that's 80-90% of your economy and it's a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it's a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it's now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn't interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it's a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it's a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn't have to, when instead they could've started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn't know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they're out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they're back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Source:Mr. Beat- A 3-way presidential election?

Source:The New Democrat

"The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to "make America great again."

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. "

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn't the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

Source:Political Matters- John Anderson For President, 1980 

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don't realize that these terms don't go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn't like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan's Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don't look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

History Collection: Dwight D. Eisenhower Quotes On Politics, War, and Freedom

Source:Originally from History Collections- President Dwight Eisenhower, on extremism. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Dwight D. Eisenhower (''Ike'') was one of the most prominent American presidents and US Army Generals. In this video, you can find his thoughts about warfare, American politics and government."

From History Collection

Source:Words On Images- Dwight Eisenhower, on freedom 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: "if you want total security go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom." President Eisenhower, talking about the value of freedom, freedom of choice, personal autonomy, etc, the tools that every person every free society uses to manage their own affairs.

The only thing that is free about a free society is the freedom for individuals to make their own decisions. Everything else about a free society comes with choices, investments, even costs. To be able to do things and make your own decisions, you have to earn that buy doing other things. Like getting and education, and good job that allows you to able to take care of yourself. And those really aren't costs either, but more like investments because you get a lot of education and a good job that you're good at other than money and a good job which is knowledge that you can use in your future which either helps you at work or in other places, but with everything that you do in life.

And in any society wether it's a free society or an authoritarian society or even let's say a social democratic society where the national government attempts to eliminate as much economic risk as possible, but falls short of nationalizing the economy there's going to be some risk there. Which is why a good education is so important so the people have as much knowledge and quality information as possible to be able to make their own good decisions and investments. But even life in prison ( not that I know from personal experience ) comes with real risks and those risks generally having to do with one's physical security. Even non-violent offenders have to deal with the risk that one of their fellow inmates might actually hurt them or worst at some point.

And in any authoritarian society where both economic and personal risk is eliminated or that's what the government tries to create, there is a risk that the state might pick you up, because they see you as some threat to the regime. Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia are great examples of that. So in no society and no form of life comes without personal risk. The question is how do you manage it and what decisions you make with your own life.

For me is the best form of life is a free life where people are able to make their own personal and economic decisions themselves, but are then held accountable for their own decision making for good and bad. And allow for everyone to get themselves the best education that they can so they can make the best lives for themselves as possible. As well as encourage people to get a good education, good job, earn a good living. So you have as many free people as possible in society.

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: 'Why The National Debt Matters'

Source:Peter G. Peterson Foundation- Americans who will be paying for the national debt for the rest of their lives .

Source:The New Democrat

"At $22 trillion and rising, the national debt threatens America’s economic future. Here are some of the reasons why the national debt matters."

From the Peter G. Peterson Foundation

For anyone who tries to tell you that deficits and the national debt don't matter, whether they're Socialists on the Left or supply Neoconservatives on the Right, ask them one question: "then why do we need taxes if we we have unlimited borrowing power?" If deficits and debt doesn't matter and you have unlimited borrowing power, you wouldn't need taxes. If you want government to do something or increase spending, since you have unlimited borrowing power like someone who has their own printing machine and just print money every time they want to spend money, you can just print the money you need and want to spend.

Source:Retirement Income Journal- You still believe the national debt doesn't matter?

This is a ridiculous question, because of course deficits and debt matter. So don't let the Dick Cheney's of the world or these leftist Democrats ( whether they call themselves Socialists or not ) running for President who will promise any single new government program that they can think of in order to win the Democratic nomination and who'll call their programs and services free, even though they're at least smart enough to know that their services won't be free and perhaps are just plain dishonest about it. Because they'll either be paid for in new taxes on the middle class by the way and not people who live in Manhattan, or the Hamptons, or in Georgetown, or in Beverly Hills, but by people who work hard everyday and live in middle class communities in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and other places. Because the wealthy are smart enough to move their money oversees anytime they get wind of a new tax coming down the pike for them.

Source:Slide Player- The photo says it all 

As it says in the video American taxpayers of all incomes every year pay about 390 billion dollars in interest payments on the debt. Which is just one example of what can happen when you have a national debt that's the size of your entire gross national product. Just think of what Uncle Sam could do with 390 billion dollars a year that he doesn't have to tax his nephews and nieces every year to raise that revenue. 390 billion would repair, replace, and create a helluva lot of public infrastructure in America. Lots of roads and new schools in middle class and low-income communities. Money that could also be used to for adult education so people who are struggling to pay their bills and don't have enough education. We could be investing new funds for people who are uneducated and currently not working so they can finish and further their education, enter the workforce and join the middle class in America.

If you call yourself a Progressive, these are just some of the investments that America could be making for their people to improve their lives. But we can't do these things and a country and do other public investments when we're giving out 390 billion dollars a year ( and growing ) simply because we're not adult and responsible enough as citizens and public officials to pay for the things that we want our government to do for us every year. Of course deficits and debt matters and they don't go way simply by saying, "we'll just tax the rich" especially when even if your IRS actually gets that money would just be spent on new programs or put into additional government programs.

History: American Pickers- Danielle C. Cushman

Source:Esinalca- Danielle C. Cushman, on American Pickers. 

Source:The Action Blog

"Falta muy poco para el momento que estabas esperando: el #DanyIntimo da el gran salto de internet a la televisión, y no te lo puedes perder.  Google  Mientras tanto, disfruta un adelanto exclusivo con lo mejor de Danielle Colby."

Source:History- Danielle and Mike Wolfe 

From History

Source:Flickr via Bert Franklin- Danielle C. Cushman 

To be completely honest with you for a minute, ( and after that anything can happen ) I only watch American Pickers because of Danielle Colby Cushman. I'm a big fan of history and I'm very interested in it and read a lot about it and watch a lot of docs about it, I'm just not a collector when it comes to history other than DVD's and books.

Source:The Joplin Globe- Danielle C. Cushman 

The show is fairly entertaining and to see how hard these people in Iowa work and how far they travel to keep their business going. Both Mike and Frank bring a lot of knowledge, hard work, and humor to their jobs. And I kind of like Frank Fritz reminds me a lot of the TV PI Frank Cannon from back in the 70s both in personality and appearance. And Mike Wolfe, reminds me a lot of the former NFL head coach Mike Shananhan physically. But Danielle, is the main event and main reason for me to watch this show, I just wish she had a bigger role and more airtime.

Danielle C. Cushman, ( or perhaps Danielle Colby at this point ) is so cute, so sexy, pretty funny, and just a pleasure to check out on the show. Every time Mike or Frank bring her on one of their trips to actually work with them, the guys they visit in order to buy historical items the men they encounter and are doing business with automatically like her and want to be around her. I believe just her presence alone brings in action and money for their business. And it's just not just her physical appearance and personality that people like about her on the show, she also knows what she's talking about and isn't some bimbo along for the ride like you might see on a game show or talk show. She's a professional collector as well which is why Mike and Frank hired her.

Not that History Channel and American Pickers listens to me anyway, but if they want me to watch this show more and perhaps guys who aren't let's say junkies ( pun intended ) when it comes to historical collections to watch their show more, give Danielle Colby a bigger role on the show. Instead of just getting a few minutes each week or however often the show is seeing her at the office answering the phone and then calling Mike and Frank in their truck on the road to tell them about a new potential customer for them. Put her on the road more and let's see her doing some actual collecting herself.

Politics & Prose: Dr. Eric Motley & Elaine Pagels: 'Why Religion'

Source:Politics & Prose- Dr. Eric Motley, interviewing author Elaine Pagels at Politics and Prose in Washington. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Elaine Pagels discusses her book, "Why Religion?", at Politics and Prose on 11/30/18.

When Pagels, author of groundbreaking studies of the Gnostic Gospels, was asked, “Why religion?" she found that her own life illuminates both why she’s made a career of studying religious texts as well as why religion itself still exists in the supposedly secular 21st-century. The daughter and wife of scientists, Pagels was taught to trust the rational, but she found herself attracted to religious music and rituals for how they engaged the imagination. After the loss of her five-year-old son in 1987, followed by her husband’s death in an accident in 1988, Pagels turned to religion for help in facing her grief and anger. Interweaving the fascinating scholarship behind books such The Origin of Satan and Revelations with her own experiences, Pagels’s memoir is as emotionally affecting as it is thought-provoking.

Pagels is in conversation with Dr. Eric Motley, executive vice president at the Aspen Institute and author of the memoir Madison Park."

From Politics & Prose

As someone who is Agnostic and proud of it who believes in reason, science, facts, and only has faith in people, things, institutions that I trust based on the evidence that I've seen from being around them and talking to them, I can actually see why people would be attracted in religion. 

As someone who believes in the First Amendment which includes the Freedom of Religion in America, ( sorry Hippies, I'm not spiritualist and I'm not a Communist either ) I can see why people would want religion, be involved in America, and even need it. I guess this is difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist, especially a fundamentalist Atheist. (And yes, there is such a thing) 

This is not an official definition, but that might only be because there isn't any official definition of religion, but my personal definition of religion is basically basic set of moral values that people believe and follow, as well as the belief in God. Now, depending on what religion you are a member of determines what moral values that you believe in and follow that helps you in your life. 

I can easily see how people can get positive benefits from being a part of a religion and get positive benefits from attending church and listening to their religious leader every week give a sermon, especially when they're going through rough times and need help getting through those tough times. Even though religion is not for me and I prefer to use evidence and reason to get through those tough times in our lives. 

Elaine Pagels, lost both her son and husband in the span of a year back in 1987-88, apparently wasn't very religious before those tragedies in her life, but found religion after that and I can understand someone who goes through those tragedies especially in such a short period of time would feel the need to get help from religion and learn about that and try to figure out for themselves why they're being put through those tragedies one following by another.

Religion, has been used by alcoholics to get over their alcoholism. It's been used to help career criminals who are doing long-term prison sentences get their life going on a positive track so once they're finally out of prison they can become positive members of their community once they're free. As much as I might hate religious fundamentalism in all forms, ( and trust me, I do ) people should also understand and beware of the positive aspects of religious life as well.