Frank Talk: Frank Colletta- Episode 1: What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Source:Frank Talk- Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt: two of our Progressive President's.

Source:The New Democrat

"Welcome to Frank Talk episode 1. Join me as we explore the Four Pillars of Progressive Thought and what it means to be a progressive-minded individual. Special thanks to Think Progress for their article entitled: "What it Means to Be a Progressive", written by John Halpin. His work was integral to the creation of this educational video. Thanks is also given to the American Values Project for their work on, "Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values and Beliefs and Positions".

From Frank Talk

Source:Wikipedia

"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy it's based on the idea of progress which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development and social technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

I like Frank Colletta's line about: "within every heart of a Conservative, you find hopes for a progressive tomorrow." Which has always been one of the points about Progressive and progressivism, that it's not partisan and in some cases it's not ideological even. And people need to understand that if they really want to know what it means to be a Progressive and what progressivism is actually about, especially with the Far-Left who are really Socialists and in some cases even Communists, who try to adopt Progressive and progressivism for themselves, because they're afraid to be labeled as Socialists or Communists depending on how far to the left that actually are.

As far as Frank Colletta saying that progressivism is about fairness and equality: sure, but most mainstream political philosophies whether they're right or left believe in some level of fairness ( or as I prefer justice ) and equality. Progressives, don't have the monopoly on justice and equality.

The First Pillar: Freedom and Opportunity

Again, most mainstream political philosophies believe in some level of freedom and opportunity. Where Progressives would differ from Conservative-Libertarians ( let's say ) on the Right and Socialists as well on the Left, is that Progressives believe that government has a role in seeing that everyone had the ability and opportunity to live in freedom in America. Not just people who are born to wealth in America or people from a certain racial or ethnic background. Which is where Progressives would differ from Conservatives when it comes to freedom.

But Progressives differ from Socialists as well, because Socialists believe that opportunity doesn't go far enough, because they believe that some people won't take advantage of those opportunities and come up short. Or some people will do so well and have so much freedom over others and that to Socialists is somehow unfair. Progressives, don't believe in total economic equality in the sense that everyone has the same basic income and standard of living, but that everyone has the opportunity to achieve real freedom in America.

My short, but simple definition of a Progressive in a political sense: is someone who believes in progress through government action. Progressive, is not another word for Socialist ( democratic or otherwise ) and Progressive is not another word for hippie or hipster: someone who is in on all the latest social trends and proud of that. You don't have to to hip, cool, or awesome to be a Progressive: You just have to believe in progress and that government has a limited, but real role in achieving progress and that everyone's constitutional rights are protected and that everyone has a real shot at succeeding in America. That everyone is protected from predators and predatory behavior, foreign or domestic.

A Progressive is not someone who is necessarily in on all the latest social trends and backs them, or has a big government solution and tax increase to solve everyone's problems for them and take care of them. Or someone who believes that freedom is dangerous and selfish.

Investigation Discovery: Jodi Arias- 'The Missing Pieces'

Source:Investigation Discovery- Convicted murderer Jodi Arias. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Ten years later, people still talk about Jodi Arias and the murder of Travis Alexander. Through exclusive interviews with her former lawyer, a former cellmate, and a rapper who recorded a tribute to her, The Missing Pieces goes deeper into Arias's story.

Stream full episodes of your favorite ID shows now! Investigation Discovery."

If you look at Jodi Arias who was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in 2012, if you just look at her on the surface and seeing her for the first time physically, I think you would have a very difficult time believing she could even kill a mouse let alone a grown, healthy, strong, young man. She's simply too damn cute to play the role of a murderer even fictionally, let alone in real-life. She comes off a a girl who is still in high school and perhaps even younger than that as far as her physical appearance, her voice, and personality.

Source: Philo- Convicted murderer Jodi Arias 

But perhaps the most successful murderers especially serial murderers, are the cutest people doing the murders. Or in Ted Bundy's case, the handsomeness and most charming, because their victims would never expect them to kill a bug let alone another human being. The ultimate sneak attack which is how Jodi Arias murdered Travis Alexander at his home in 2008. I'm not arguing that she's not guilty of at least killing Travis and I believe she probably murdered him, just saying that on her surface she looks like one of the last people who could ever kill anyone. But then you get to know her and learn about her personality, it's not hard to believe that she could kill anyone.

Source: Kevin Clark- Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander, when they were still together 

As far as her lawyer Kirk Nurmi, who came down with cancer from apparently defending Jodi and trying to keep her from the death penalty, I don't want to make light of his situation. And I'm not making light here either, but even defense lawyers have a conscience and he must have had a pretty good idea that his client was probably guilty of this crime, but decided to defend her anyway. Even murderers have a constitutional right to an adequate defense, but unless the judge assigns you to the case, you don't have to take it and you can always asked be to be removed from it and step down.

I don't want to say lost soul here, but before Jodi Arias met Travis Alexander she really had no idea what she was going to do with her life. Unlike Travis who was a devout Mormon and was making his living as a public speaker and self-improvement speaker. We don't know what happens to Jodi had she not had murdered Travis and perhaps Travis would've dumped her because she did seem to have possessive characteristics and could even be dangerous and violent. Maybe she moves on in life makes something positive of herself or finds another victim. We'll never know.

Inside Edition: Ali Rosen- 'Legendary Chef and Traveler Anthony Bourdain Dies At 61': The Man Who Saw and Lived The World

Source:Inside Edition- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Anthony Bourdain, an American chef and television personality, has been found dead of an apparent suicide. He was 61. His body was found in a French hotel room by close friend and chef Éric Ripert, according to CNN.  The pair had been traveling together for the filming of Bourdain's CNN show, "Parts Unknown." As part of his Emmy Award-winning program, which premiered in 2013, Bourdain traveled the world, uncovering lesser-known cuisines."

From Inside Edition

When I first heard about Anthony Bourdain's show Parts Unknown coming to CNN in 2013 or 14, I thought this was another one of those so-called reality TV shows where the lead character is some loudmouth who makes an asshole out of himself ( to be frank ) in order to gain ratings. I'm not a fan of what's called reality TV generally, except for what's actually reality TV which are documentary programs even documentaries about Hollywood, so I was thinking Parts Unknown is not something I'm going to be interested in.

Source: USA Today- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain 

But so-called reality TV is wasn't Tony Bourdain's show and what he wanted to communicate to people. He was a food and cultural documentarian who traveled the world to show people what other people eat and how they live. Who brought people together over good meals and got to learn about them by experiencing them, what they eat, the sites and sounds of their countries. And then he would show everyone else what he learned about Vietnam, Italy, Ecuador, Cuba, and wherever else he would travel to.

Source: The Chive- One of Anthony Bourdain's best quotes 

In a country and world where we're so divided mainly on political and cultural grounds and now unfortunately even by race, ethnicity, and class, Bourdain brought diversity together with food and culture. And showed millions of Americans and people outside of America, that even with all of our differences that we can still share a great meal together, get to know each other and realize we're not that strange from one another after all.

I'm not a cook and all I know about food and cooking is that food can taste really good, it can taste really bad, and generally somewhere in between, in less you what you're doing or where to eat and have the resources to eat great food on a regular basis. But I know what I like and how to cook for myself and what I got from Bourdain was that not all good food has to taste alike and look alike. That good food comes in all different forms made from all different types of people in different countries.

The other thing that I got from Bourdain which I already knew, but hopefully now millions of other Americans and people outside of America hopefully also know, is that it isn't okay to be yourself, but that being yourself is the only person you should be. Because you're the only person you know really well.

When you try to be someone other than yourself especially a famous celebrity that you look up to, all you're doing is acting. And I realize some people do that for a living and even do it on so-called reality TV. But the non-reality actors are professional actors. And when everyone else tries to be someone other than them self, they're not only not just actors, but now they're amateurs and amateur actors.

In a country and world where so many people especially young people feel the need to be like their favorite celebrity and in many cases reality star, Tony Bourdain taught so many people how to be themselves and why they should always be them self. He taught us about individualism and how to be an individual.

I think Ayn Rand would've loved Anthony Bourdain even if was just for that reason. And if you don't like yourself, maybe it's because you have character issues, or you suffer from low self-esteem, which is something that perhaps Bourdain also had issues with.

But that we're the only person we know really well and the only person where we always know what we're thinking and what we know. And when we try to be someone other than ourself, we're just pretending. Anthony Bourdain's belief in individualism and his ability to bring different people together with food and culture, is what I'm going to miss about him.

Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Lozada Interviewing David Frum: 'Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy'

Source:Washington Watch- Carlos Lozada, interviewing David Frum about his book Trumpocracy.

Source:The New Democrat

"David Frum: Trumpocracy at Amazon
Hour long discussion with David Frum, Former White House speechwriter and The Atlantic columnist. He is interviewed by Washington Post book critic and associate editor Carlos Lozada. Frum is the son of Canadian journalist Barbara Frum.

He graduated from the University of Toronto Schools in 1978 where he was the school captain. At Yale University, he simultaneously earned Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in history, graduating in 1982. He was in Directed Studies, a type of "Great Books" curriculum.

Frum earned his Juris Doctor (J.D.) at Harvard Law School in 1987."

From Washington Watch

Maybe Trumpocracy is another way of talking about the new highly rated Washington reality TV show known as The White House, with Donald Trump. I say highly rated and not highly successful, because it's not successful at least as far as far as how the American people think of it.

Anytime 3-5 voters don't like the politician that is supposed to represent them whatever the office is, that politician is not doing well. 3-5 Americans don't like the job that President Trump is doing, don't like him personally, and don't trust him. He's in Richard Nixon territory as far as how unpopular he is with the American people. But his new show and perhaps Amateur Night at The White House, would be a better name for President Trump's latest reality TV show, is highly rated.

You can't just look at Donald Trump by only looking at one aspect of him. You have to look at the narcissistic, selfish, gigantic, sized personality. You have to look at his governing style, which he doesn't seem to have at least from the outside looking in. You have to look at his policies. You have to look at his supporters which at this point are only little more than a third of the electorate, but we're enough to at least get him the Republican nomination for President.

And then you have to look to his appeasement of those voters. The salesmanship to be kind, the con game would be more accurate in how he appeals to blue-collar, fundamentalist, Christian voters especially in the Republican Party, but in some cases in the upper Midwest the Democratic Party as well.

In 2016 we saw the John Birch Society/George Wallace/Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan right-wing populist ethno-Tribalist-Nationalist presidential candidate, but with a personality, as well as great sense of humor and even likable at times in Donald Trump. And yes, Donald Trump is a very funny man ( even intentionally ) and even likable when he's in small spaces and groups.

This is a political faction in America that has been around since World War I at least in America that views conspiracy theories as real news like Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordering the assassination of President John Kennedy. And real news as fake and establishment news. Who don't trust institutions especially non-partisan institutions like the CIA and FBI, simply because they can't be controlled by partisans. And operate independently even from the President.

I view Donald Trump as wannabe dictator who picked the last country in the world to try to become a dictator in the United States of America. Sort of like a village idiot who tries to rob a bank with just a leaky water gun at 12 noon on a Monday and wonders what went wrong and how come people were just laughing at him instead of giving him their money.

President Trump knows he can't shut down the private media because we have a guaranteed free press and his administration simply wouldn't allow for him to even try that. So he calls them fake news at least when they report negative facts about him. Which is most of the time. He says his entire intelligence community is wrong when they say that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election.

He accuses people that he personally appointed as being disloyal and part of the establishment when they don't shut down the Russia investigation and even expand it when new facts and evidence come to light about the Trump Campaign's involvement with Russia during the 2016 election. Because he's smart enough to know he can't control these investigations and what Congress does by himself. So he instead attempts to make them look corrupt. He's a wannabe dictator in the wrong country and doesn't like accountability and limited power.

In some ways Donald Trump is the worst nightmare and horror movie coming to real life and part of that is because he's now the President of the United States. Literally the most powerful and most important country in the world, the greatest country in the world as far as how powerful and influential in the world. But part of why we're so strong, powerful, and great, is because of our checks and balances, our accountability. Which was designed in case someone like Donald Trump ever became President.

The reason why we've been able to avoid nationalist populist authoritarians from coming to power in America and why countries like Russia, Poland, Venezuela, haven't, is because of our checks and balances. And is something that Donald Trump is learning the hard way.

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source:The Film Archives- Author Camille Paglia, giving a speech at some event, perhaps in New York City.

Source:The New Democrat

"Buchanan was the national treasurer of the "Reagan for President" primary campaigns of 1976 and 1980, and the Reagan-Bush general election campaigns of 1980 and 1984. After appearing regularly on CNN's news program Inside Politics, she became a commentator for The Situation Room, and later Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull. She previously served as the co-anchor of Equal Time on CNBC and MSNBC, and during that time also hosted a two-hour radio talk show."

From The Film Archives

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I'm quick enough to understand what she's saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn't be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille's politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, then that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn't be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don't believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would've been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.

CNN: Special Preview- 'The Radical Story of Patty Hearst': Story of The Symbionese Liberation Army

Source:CNN- From Nor-Cal heiress to New-Left Socialist revolutionary.

Source:The New Democrat

"Patty Hearst transformed from heiress to terrorist in a saga of privilege, celebrity, politics, media, revolution, and violence. The docuseries premieres Sunday February 11 9 PM ET on CNN."

From CNN

I believe to understand the kidnapping of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army, you have to understand the 1970s especially the early and mid 1970s. I don't want to sound overdramatic but America was at a breaking point at this point with a whole generation of Baby Boomers who were pissed off at America and the American system and wanted something different as far as our culture, way of life, and even form of government.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s you had this Marxist-Socialist terrorist group called The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society. They go out of business by the early 1970s and this new far left-wing group of Communists emerges in California called the Symbionese Liberation Army.

The SLA believed wealthy people especially wealthy Caucasians and wealthy Caucasian men and wealthy corporations owned and managed by these men, were keeping poor Americans of all backgrounds, as well as minorities down. And they decided they would fight back and use violence to accomplish these political objectives. Which was to force wealthy Caucasian people to give money to the poor and feed the poor.

Patty Hearst the daughter of Randolph Hearst who owned a media empire in San Francisco, California which included the San Francisco Examiner newspaper and some TV stations, was the first major target and capture of this Marxist-Communist revolutionary group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. ( Or SLA )

The SLA kidnaps Patty Hearst in February, 1974 in order to get her father to give up 10s of millions of dollars and spend that money feeding the poor in Berkeley, California and other parts of Northern California. Kidnapping especially depending on how you treat your hostages, is about as radical and in some cases violent of a terrorist action that you can commit against anyone. But the SLA was as radical and violent of a political terrorist organization that we've seen in America.

The late 1960s and the 1970s back then, doesn't look much different from the radical left-wing groups that we see today with the so-called ANTIFA movement and these political correctness groups. Back then you had a very large generation of Americans who were pissed off at society and the government and wanted something radically different. With the so-called ANTIFA group now who also use terrorism to accomplish their Far-Left political objectives, you have a generation of Millennial's who are also pissed off at America and hate our form of government. What has changed is the media and the ability for radical groups to get their message out there and to get noticed.

The Film Archives: Book TV- U.S. Representative Bobby Rush Interviewing Catherine Wilkerson: 'The Legacy of The Weather Underground & The New Left Movement of The 1960s'

Source: The Film Archives- Unknown woman who perhaps was part of the socialist Weather Underground from the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a student activist movement in the United States that was one of the main representations of the New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving at its last convention in 1969."

From The Film Archives

From Wikipedia about The Weather Underground.

"The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American militant radical left-wing organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party to overthrow the U.S. Government.[3]

"With revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s and took part in actions such as the jailbreak of Dr. Timothy Leary. The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization".[4]

The bombing campaign targeted mostly government buildings, along with several banks. The group stated that the United States government had been exploiting other nations by waging war as a means of solidifying America as a greater nation. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. No people were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.

For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying that it was "in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos". For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated that it was "in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi". For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State building, they stated that it was "in response to the escalation in Vietnam".[4]

The Weathermen grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) faction of SDS. It took its name from Bob Dylan's lyric, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", from the song "Subterranean Homesick Blues" (1965). "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows" was the title of a position paper that they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements[5] to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism".[6]

The Weathermen began to disintegrate after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973,[7] after which the New Left declined in influence. By 1977, the organization was defunct."

I think a good way to look at The Weathermen would be look to Fidel Castro's revolutionary movement in Cuba in the late 1950s. Except that the Castro Marxist-Communists in Cuba were looking to overthrow a dictatorial authoritarian regime there. But then what happened there is that they replace one dictatorial regime with another and turned Cuba into Marxist-Communist state which it still is today 60 years later.

The Weathermen were looking to overthrow a liberal democratic government and society in America and replace it with a socialist society. Where things like racism, materialism, individualism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, masculinity, would be eliminated or those would be the goals of this group.

The 1960s is not just a fascinating time but a revolutionary time in America. The 1950s and 1960s are only one decade apart and the people who came of age in both decades are only a generation apart, but the two decades have almost nothing in common with each other and looked completely different culturally and politically. The difference between America and Russia, or North Korea and South Korea. Two very different looking and completely different societies.

The 1950s was the Christian-Right's utopia where men worked and paid the bills. Women stayed home and raised their kids. Gays were buried in the closet culturally and perhaps you would need a rocket launcher back then to break the door down to let them out. African-Americans as well as other racial and ethnic minorities were treated like second-class citizens compared with European-Americans. Especially Anglo-Saxon men.

But thanks to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement African-Americans woke up and said they want their rights and would march for them and even give up their health and lives to get them. And had help from Caucasians who agreed with them and thought treating people as second-class citizens simply because of their race was evil. The Dr. King movement was the start of three left-wing movement's in America. The King movement was a social-democratic movement.

The Baby Boomers start to come of age in the 1960s and start the Hippie movement ( the real Liberals back then ) because the 1950s lifestyle that they were part of as kids wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the freedom to be themselves and be Americans which is what being an American is about which is the freedom for people to be themselves.

But then you have this radical socialist movement in America ( not to be insulting ) that believed the social-democratic movement of the 1960s led by Dr. King and others wasn't good enough and didn't go far enough.

Dr. King and Social Democrats of the 1960s, weren't looking to overthrow the American Federal Republic and our liberal democratic system, but instead improve on it and establish an economic system that benefited more Americans so more Americans could benefit from our capitalist system.

What The Weather Underground and other New-Left socialist groups were looking to do was to overthrow the U.S. Government literally and create a socialist state in America. Some of these people might have been Democratic Socialists, but a lot of them were Communists like The Black Panthers and other groups who literally looking for revolution in America.

The 1960s and 1970s was a very violent time in America. We were going though terrorist bombings every week in the early and mid 1970s. Wealthy people were being kidnapped by Far-Left terrorists to get their money and then give it to poor people.

Not everyone on the Left are pacifists. Only Social Democrats and some Democratic Socialists are. Communists are not obviously and believe violence even if they don't like it can be an effective and justifiable tool to accomplish their political objectives. And that is what The Weather Underground was which was a socialist militant political organization in America.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Monologue- 'Banana Republicans'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on Banana Republicans.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Bill recaps the top stories of the week, including the House GOP's controversial decision to release "The Memo."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Watching CNN yesterday afternoon as I was working ( of course ) they were obviously covering the release of the Devin Nunes memo and they had Robert Baer on who was a career CIA intelligence officer before he retired several years ago that Donald Trump probably sees as some Marxist-Communist member of the so-called Deep State. Communists working for the CIA is about as common as Muslims and Latinos voting for Donald Trump in Alabama.

But that being said, Bob Baer was on CNN yesterday talking about the memo and he called it a piece of trash. Now, if he was part of HBO's special coverage of the Nunes memo or Showtime, he probably would've called it a piece of shit, because that is exactly what it is. All it is, is Trumpian talking points about the FBI and broader intelligence community in America and this conspiracy theory that Donald Trump and his supporters have that the intelligence community is out to get President Trump.

When Bill Maher calls these Trump supporters of the House Banana Republicans, he ain't lying. These House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee ( of all places ) see themselves now as defense lawyers and operatives for the White House.

These intelligence reports and in Representative Devin Nunes's case the ( Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ) unintelligent memo that a seventh grader could've edited for their parents and found real holes in it, is nothing more than RNC/White House talking points. That says you have to back Presdent Trump at all costs even if it makes you look like an idiot, or worse a liar, worse than that a corrupt defense lawyer.

This is not one of those partisan squabbles that you see all the time in Washington especially in Congress with Republicans and Democrats looking like they're fighting each other and accusing each other of cheating in a pickup basketball game or at recess. This is a Republican inter party squabble between House Republicans teaming up with the White House, against the Republican led and mostly Republican intelligence community. Washington Republicans vs. the CIA and FBI.

Representative Devin Nunes who has one of the most important jobs in all of Congress as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is nothing more than a hack defense lawyer for President Donald Trump. Nunes is a man that the House of Representatives is supposed to rely on for fair and accurate intelligence reports and oversight of the intelligence community. But what does he do instead? Go out of his way to make the intelligence community unfairly look bad because they have negative information about President Trump and his presidential campaign and it now looks like they were working with Russians to get Donal Trump elected President. So they've decided they have to make the intelligence community look bad at all costs so President Trump doesn't take them down in 2018.

A&E: Biography- Gary Gilmore

Source:A&E- Biography Gary Gilmore.

Source:The New Democrat 

“After committing a series of escalating petty crimes in Oregon during his teens, Gary Gilmore was sent to reform school and later served his first stretch in prison. By the age of 35, he had spent half his life incarcerated. After receiving a conditional release in May 1976, Gilmore moved in with a cousin in Provo, Utah, and briefly led a normal life. However, two months later he killed two men in cold blood during separate robberies and was arrested shortly thereafter. Found guilty of first-degree murder in his October 1976 trial, Gilmore chose not to appeal his death sentence. His case became a rallying point for opponents of the death penalty, and his execution was delayed for a time. He was executed by a firing squad in January 1977." 

From Biography 

“Documentary TV is an English language documentary channel. It features free online documentaries about crime , violence , murders, cases, serial killers , America,Russia and world.

Don’t forget to subscribe and enjoy our videos for more Serial Killer Documentaries!”  

Source:Documentary TV- from an A&E bio of Gary Gilmore.

From Documentary TV

"Serial Killer - A&E Biography ''Gary Gilmore''

From A&E 

This photo is originally from a video that had the A&E Biography of Gary Gilmore. But if you are familiar with YouTube, you know that a lot of quality videos disappear, but a lot of the garbage manages to hang around. 

Source:A&E- Some of the most evil serial killers ever.

I’m not going to say that Gary Gilmore would have ended up as a terrific human being had he only had a father that loved him and raised him properly and didn’t beat his kids including Gary Gilmore. Because we’ll never know that.

And I’m not going to say Gilmore’s rough childhood should’ve spared him from his responsibilities in the murders that he was given. Even I do believe he should’ve been spared the death penalty which is a different issue. But Gary Gilmore unlike Ted Bundy or Jeff Dahmer, had good upbringings and parents who raised them well and who loved them. Gary didn’t really have that at all growing up.

Gary Gilmore’s father was basically a drunk bastard who wasn’t around much other than to pay the bills and when he was around would beat the kids mother, as well as the kids and beat Gary as well. Gary’s mother did love her kids including Gary, but wasn’t able to raise her kids properly. Didn’t have the skills and wasn’t able to make the money needed to raise her kids well.

Gary Gilmore similar to Charles Manson had a horrible upbringing and as a result became a very angry young man who got into a lot of trouble early in life. But the time Gilmore was executed in early 1977, he had already spent more than half of his time in life in prison.

Gary Gilmore was not a man who was built and raised to succeed in society and live with freedom. He only had any success in life when he was in prison and had real structure and people making decisions for him and supervising him. This is not a man who was ever ready to be outside of prison and a man who if he were left in prison indefinitely in prison, would’ve been a very productive prison inmate. And would’ve gotten himself a good education and job, but while in prison.

Outside of prison Gary Gilmore was a shark outside of the ocean. A killer shark who would lose his temper easily and not be able to find a good job and end up stealing to support himself and murdering the people he would steal from. Which is what he did in 1976 that eventually got him the death penalty.

Gary Gilmore was never suited for life on the outside and to live in freedom. And should’ve never been paroled. He is the poster child for outlawing parole in America, even though I’m not in favor of that. But if you were to eliminate parole it would be for criminals like Gary Gilmore. People who when are in the outside anyone who crosses their path and does the smallest thing that can set that person off, literally put their life at risk. Gilmore is someone who should’ve been given an indefinite sentence in prison before he was released for the last time in his life. And he wouldn’t have become a serial killer.  

PBS: American Masters- 'None Without Sin: The Story of Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan'

Source:PBS- Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan, being featured in this PBS documentary.

Source:The New Democrat

"A fascinating (and hard to come by) 2003 PBS documentary look at the relationship between playwright Arthur Miller and Director Elia Kazan, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and its Red Baiting - and the defiant art the period inspired.

Written, produced and directed by Michael Epstein."

From PBS

Elia Kazan was looked down upon ( and I'm being nice ) because he was former Communist and member of Communist Party USA, who testified in 1952 in front of the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, for outing other Communists and Socialists who worked in Hollywood. And because of this Kazan was able to continue his brilliant Hollywood career as a direct or, producer, and writer. And as a result his colleagues in Hollywood refused to honor his great works because the Socialist-Left in Hollywood saw him as a traitor. Even though no one will even attempt to argue that Elia Kazan wasn't a great writer, director, and producer.

So Elia Kazan had two feet kicking him in the rear during is career. One foot because the corporate establishment kicking him simply for being a Communist and kicking him simply because of his personal politics and beliefs. The other foot the Socialist-Left. Actors, directors, producers, writers, the employees in Hollywood, kicking Kazan because he came out as a Communist, which is like admitting to being a rapist or murderer, to the Fascist-Right in America.

We have a guaranteed right to free speech in America which of course covers politics but other aspects of what we think and what we have to say, with only a few exceptions dealing with libel, inciting violence, and harassment. ( Not offensive speech ) So unless you're working for foreign government to try to hurt the United States, or involved in terrorist activities to advance your politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. Even if it offends tight asses on the Far-Right who have their own limited view of what it means to be an American. Or tight asses on the Far-Left who believe anything that is critical about anyone who is not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant straight male, should be censored.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: there's nothing dangerous about one's political beliefs and thoughts. People have a right to believe what they believe. America is so strong as a liberal democracy that we tolerate people who believe America is some racist evil empire. Which is what Communists and perhaps Democratic Socialists even, tend to believe. And we can tolerate people who believe non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants, are basically animals not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the English-Protestants who came to America in the 16 and 1700s. Doesn't mean fringe thinking in America shouldn't be looked down upon and people who act on those fringe beliefs through violence shouldn't be monitored and punished. But Americans shouldn't be denied access in America and be blacklisted simply because of their personal politics.

Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- Discusses The Hollywood Blacklist

Source: Foundation Interviews- Actress Betty Garrett, being interviewed about The Hollywood Blacklist.

Source:The New Democrat

"Betty Garrett discusses the Hollywood Blacklist - Emmy TV Legends.

From Foundation Interviews

Betty Garrett saying in this interview that workers in Hollywood we're interested in the Communist Party (Communist Party USA) and not just interested but politically active, because the Communist Party back then were talking about issues like affordable housing, health care, civil and equal rights, what would be called progressive causes and that they were called a progressive organization. Hearing the words communist and progressive, to describe Communists, is ironic at best.

I don't doubt that Communists believe in affordable housing and that government has a big role in seeing that is available for everyone. Or that they believe in affordable health care and health insurance. Or that they believe in equal rights for everyone in the country. Keep in mind, the civil rights movement was just a baby back in the mid and late 1940s when the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigations were going on in Congress with the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee. Perhaps not even a baby and not even born yet.

Equal rights for all Americans and seeing that Non-European Americans had the same civil rights and constitution rights as English-Protestants in America, was not a mainstream issue. After all, Communists are Socialists when it comes to economic policy and today even there's still a lot of Marxism in the communist movement in America.

But, if Communists were to ever come to power in America (and it started snowing in Hell on the same day) most if not all of our civil liberties and constitutional rights would disappear. Most rights in America are individual rights. Free speech, the right to not be discriminated against under law based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion. The right to privacy, our property rights, equal justice under law. The right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.

Communists don't believe in individual rights and individualism in general. They believe everyone in society should be subjects of the state and that it's the job of the central state to see that everyone is taken care of and that the central government has to have not just broad but unlimited powers to see that everyone is taken care of in society, but to keep the regime protected and in power indefinitely. The Communists do have socialist leanings and policies when it comes to welfare rights and the general welfare, but it is a very regressive philosophy by in-large especially when it comes to civil liberties and individualism.

As far as the Hollywood Ten and the Communists in Hollywood investigations: Americans (even in Hollywood) have the same free speech rights as Americans who believe in individual freedom and limited government. Or Americans who believe Christian Theocracy and ethno and racial nationalism. Or Democratic Socialists, or actual Progressives, or people who don't believe in any form of government at all.

Americans have a guaranteed right to free speech in America because we are a constitutional liberal democracy with guaranteed individual rights under our Constitution. And therefor have the right to believe what they believe and speak out on what they believe and work for people who share their political beliefs. And shouldn't be punished simply because of their politics. Which is what happened in Hollywood to the Hollywood ten and with by their own Federal Government by being persecuted by Congress because of their political beliefs.

Michael Vermeylen: 'Hollywood Communists- Hollywood on Trial'

Source: Michael Vermeylen- Hollywood writer Dalton Trumbo.

Source:The New Democrat

"Combining familiar newsreel footage with freshly shot material, David Helpern's Hollywood on Trial is a documentary concerning the "communist witch-hunt" era. In the years following World War II, several ambitious Washington politicos were anxious to dissipate the last traces of Roosevelt's New Deal, and in so doing labelled virtually everything hinting of liberalism as communistic.

These cynical crusaders couldn't make the headlines if they merely concentrated on such "radicals" as college professors and pamphleteers, so they targeted the most public industry of all: Motion Pictures. That's why the House UnAmerican Activities Committee conducted one-sided "investigations" of the Hollywood Left, and that's why so many actors, writers and directors found themselves on the Blacklist that no producer would ever admit existed.

Most of Hollywood on Trial concerns itself with the misadventures of the "Hollywood Ten," a group of writers and directors who refused to answer the committee's questions and wound up in jail as a result. John Huston, himself briefly under scrutiny from the HUAC for being "unfriendly," narrates this surprisingly objective, multi-viewpointed film. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi" 

From Michael Vermeylen

My whole problem and issue with the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigation that Congress investigated in the 1940s first in the House and later in the Senate in the 1950s, is that it was hypocritical and violated most of the individual rights that Americans love and cherish and that so-called Conservatives back then said they cherished as well which was our individualism, free expression, free speech, free assembly, the right for Americans to believe what they want and to practice their own politics as they please. Whether they were Far-Left Communists and Socialists that believed America was the real Evil Empire and Russia as misunderstood. Or Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists who saw African-Americans and other non-Europeans as animals.

You had these Far-Right Republicans in the House of Representatives and Neo-Confederate Democrats especially, who saw even the belief in communism and people having communist beliefs as some threat to American and Western civilization, that even having Communists in America at all even as private citizens with no foreign government connections and people who just had communist beliefs, would somehow destroy America.

And saw Communist Americans who again only had those political beliefs as people who don't have the same constitutional and individual rights as people who believe African-Americans aren't real Americans and therefor underserving of the same rights as European-Americans. You literally had right-wing racists believing that Communists who weren't bigots, weren't real Americans and therefor should be put in jail simply for their political beliefs.

You have political correctness on the Far-Left and some of that comes from Communists or people with communist leanings at least who believe they know best how every American should think and what they should believe. And believe any humor and criticism of racial and ethnic, as well as religious minorities is bigoted and therefore should be censored even though law even if the humor and criticism is accurate.

But you also have political correctness on the Far-Right in America coming from the Christian-Right as well as Nationalist-Right or Alt-Right, who believe they the real Americans because of what they think and how they live and believe anyone who looks at the world differently are Un-American and therefor do not deserve the same rights as these supposed real Americans. And the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee was a big part of that.

The only Un-American thing about HUAC ( House Un-American Activities Committee) was the committee itself. They should've been investigating themselves for being Un-American. The House should have created another select committee to investigate the Un-American activities of UUAC.

Because in America we have a guaranteed right to free speech under the First Amendment. That cover the freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all. The right to believe what we want, to associate with who we want short of known criminals, and the right to say what we want short of falsely libeling people or harassing people, inciting violence. And the so-called HUAC committee violated most if not all of our First Amendment rights and should have never been put together.

BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis- Interviewing Kurt Anderson: 'On Donald Trump and Fantasyland'

Source: BBC News- Kurt Anderson, being interviewed by BBC News, in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, Kurt Anderson was halfway through a book that he would title Fantasyland. It put the birth of fake news and false claims into a wider historical context. Kurt Anderson argues America has long been a place where renegades and freaks came in search of freedom to create their own realities. Emily Maitlis spoke to him in Washington."

From BBC Newsnight

Donald Trump and Fantasyland? Donald Trump is Fantasyland! Donald Trump is the President of Fantasyland! The United Donald of Fantasyland is the country that he presides over where facts don't matter and even exist. "If Donald Trump says it, it must be true." According the citizens of Fantasyland which is a fairly big country. Roughly 60 million people give or take voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016. If there was an amusement park called Fantasyland, Donald Trump would run the place. Well, he would probably just own it and instead hire someone who knows what they're doing run the place for him instead.

About 46% of the vote, voted for Donald Trump for President. Not talking about Lebanon or some other country that might have an authoritarian government but is so small as well as poor that it doesn't represent much if any threat to even its neighbors, let alone people around the world.

Fantasyland is a country where everything that Donald Trump says especially about himself, of course is true. Because again we're talking about Fantasyland where everyday is a marijuana high. Where facts don't matter. If Donald Trump had to operate in the real world, take Planet Earth to use as an example, he would fail miserably because he would have to deal with truth all the time. Which is generally bad about him because lack basic human values: Like commonsense, maturity, character, decency, and unfortunately I could go on but I'll spare you.

Albert Einstein once said about the truth that: "whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Donald Trump is a man who can't even admit the simplest mistakes that he's made in life. Like falling asleep one night on his phone when he was in the middle of tweeting something around 2AM. Or claiming that he had the largest crowd size ever for a presidential inauguration with the National Park Service, that was only in charge of the event contradicting the President of the United States hours later.

Donald Trump simply a man because of lack of knowledge as well as honesty, who mentally doesn't operate in the real world. Says and sees things about himself and others that simply aren't there. In some cases he's simply lying, which of course is not uncommon with politicians, but in other cases he simply doesn't know any better.

When you lose touch with reality or simply deny it and Donald Trump who is only the President of the United States unfortunately qualifies on both scores, you can't be trusted. Because you're dishonest and irresponsible. Anyone who trusts a dishonest person is asking to be screwed by that person: "I'm an idiot because I trust you, do your worst to me." And the same goes with an irresponsible man who sees pigs flying in the air, three-million Americans voting illegally with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I don't enjoy saying these things about the President of the United States and have never been this harsh about any President including President Richard Nixon. But to quote Khaled Hosseini: "better to get hurt by the truth, than comforted with a lie." The only way people can self-improve is to first know where they're at fault. The only way Donald Trump could ever become an even decent President is to operate in the real world. And stop making things up and seeing things that simply don't exist.

James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck: Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

Source: James Michl- Bill O'Reilly, giving Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Finger, talking about Newt Gingrich. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Glenn Beck on the Factor Newt G. Progressive"

From James Michl

I just have a flat disagreement with Glenn Beck on what a Progressive is and also find myself on this weird planet if not universe, where I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I wasn't sure I could agree with Bill O'Reilly about current weather in Miami or how many states are part of the United States, because Bill is wrong about so many things.

But O'Reilly is right about Newt Gingrich at least in the sense that what was a Progressive in the early 20th Century about being someone who is about progress and using government to help create that progress and what's supposed to pass as a Progressive today (like the Cleveland Browns trying to pass as an NFL franchise) , are two completely different things.

According to Glenn Beck a Progressive and a Socialist, are the same thing. Hell, why not add Communist and say being a Communist is the same thing as being a Progressive. Even though most of the Communist ideology is regressive with how authoritarian it is and all the rights and freedom that people would lose if Communists were to some how come into power even though democratic means.

Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive. Bernie Sanders, Socialist. The Progressive doesn't want a government dominated society where most if not all of our social benefits and economic security, is provided by government and financed through our taxes. The Democratic Socialist at least, doesn't want government completely in charge of society. But our individual freedom and personal income, would be much more limited if Democratic Socialists were to ever come to power.

Newt Gingrich is obviously not a Libertarian, or a Nationalist, has some things in common with the Christian-Right, but doesn't roll with them on all their policies. Not a Conservative-Libertarian either, but he's a Progressive in a conservative sense. Someone who believes in using government to create progress, but through conservative free market principles.

For example: instead of just having people on public assistance just stay there and give them some money, Newt would say that those people should be looking for and getting work, as well as education so they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance at all. As a condition of receiving that taxpayer funded public assistance. With is very different from a Libertarian who says that government shouldn't be involved in public welfare at all. And a Socialist saying that government should guarantee a basic income for everyone with no conditions.

For perhaps the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal narcotics but it feels like I'm on some high and seeing things that shouldn't be there. Like Donald Trump being President of the United States. Wait, that actually did happen.

But O'Reilly's idea of a Progressive is inline with Teddy Roosevelt's, as well as mine. That progressivism is about progress. That the first eight letters in the word progressive is actually progress. And that being a Socialist is about socialization and using government to solve most if not all the problems in the country. With Glenn Beck believing that Progressive is another word for Socialist. Someone who believes in big government. Even though a Socialist is lot more ideological than a Progressive would actually ever be.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano: 'How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom'

Source: Reason Magazine- Libertarian lawyer Andrea Napolitano, talking to Reason about Theodore Roosevelt.

Source:The New Democrat

"The radical change in the relationship of the federal government to individual Americans was ratcheted up greatly in the Progressive Era," argues Judge Andrew Napolitano in his new book, Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

The first decades of the 20th century saw an assault on individual liberties that was both unconstitutional and unprecedented in American history. From crackdowns on freedom of speech to the seizures of vast swaths of land, Judge Napolitano shows how the policies of two presidents from opposing parties laid the groundwork for a century of ever-expanding federal power.

Judge Napolitano is chief legal analyst for Fox News, a syndicated columnist, and a Reason contributor (read his archive here). He recently sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about his latest book and discuss the relevance of the Progressive era - a time of prohibition, military expansionism, and vilification of wealth - to today's political struggles."

From Reason Magazine

Libertarians which is what both Nick Gillespie and Andrew Napolitano are, (not that there's anything wrong with that) understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is very different from every other political faction.

Every political faction in America except the Socialists on the Far-Left and the Christian-Nationalists, Alt-Right racist terrorists on the Far-Right, generally support and believe in the U.S. Constitution. But Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians, now believe that government and even the Federal Government, has some role when it comes to the safety net and public welfare in the country. They believe that these programs should be run by the states and local government's and be block granted to them. But Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives, all now support some role at least for the Federal Government when it comes to the public welfare and a regulatory state.

So course the Andrew Napolitano's of the world are going to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and other Progressives, when it comes to the general welfare clause and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. There are Libertarians who believe taxation is theft and don't see America as like a club with hundreds of millions of members that we are all part of and have to pay dues (meaning taxes) in order to keep our membership in that club. So of course Libertarians are going to see the Square Deal which gave us the regulatory state in America, the New Deal, which gave us the safety net in America, and the Great Society, which expanded the safety net in America, of course Libertarians are going to see these programs and agendas as unconstitutional.

Theodore Roosevelt: 'Absolute Equality, Absolute Justice, In Matters of Taxation'

Source: Google- Theodore Roosevelt, talking about equality, justice, and taxation.

Source:The New Democrat

"Speech by Teddy Roosevelt "Social and Industrial Justice", 1912. TR Speech from Library of Congress."

Source: New Progressive Voice- Theodore Roosevelt, talking about progressive democracy.

From New Progressive Voice

When I think of Progressives and I mean true Progressives and not just people who use the label to self-identify with because they believe its politically or culturally popular and don't use it in pop culture terms, but in political terms, I think of people who believe in progress. Yes, that government can help create progress through government action and even programs, but only use government to create progress and not make things worst.

And certainly not create new programs for ideological purposes and be able to say we created this program or that program, but if you're creating a new program or spending new revenue on it, you're doing that because you know progress will be made. That there is a real need and use for that program, or regulation. That government programs are judged by whether they're working or not. Not by how much money is being spent on them.

Are Welfare programs ( to use as an example ) are they helping people to get out of poverty and become independent and empowering people to achieve freedom on their own. Or are they leaving them in poverty with a little more money than they use to have. That being a Progressive is about making things better and that you should also be fiscally responsible. Are government programs working or not. Are they outdated and need to be reformed, or are they now so successful that you no longer need then and can now scrap them and use those resources to fill another need.

A lot of times politicians especially populists on the Left tell their constituents that they delivered this program or that and spent this amount of money on this program or that one. What they tend to to fail to tell their constituents are the costs of those programs because in many cases they advertise those programs as being free. Like free college, free health care. (To use as examples) They also tend not to tell voters the results of the programs that they support and how effective they are. But instead just tell voters how much money that they were able to spend on them.

Progressives are actually not like that and instead will say this is why this program was created to do this. And this is how much it costs you (meaning the taxpayers) and this is what we get for this investment. This is why we have this program and why we're spending this money on it. Progressives are true American Patriots because of course they love America, but they really do love it and understand that no even great society is ever perfect and will ever be perfect.

That one major difference between a Progressive and Conservative, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Keeping the status-quo as is. Progressives are about progress and making things better and moving forward. That as great as America is it can always be better and knowing that America will never be prefect, that you always strive for perfection, you always strive for perfect to make America as great as it can be.

To talk about this Teddy Roosevelt quote for a while which also happens to be the title of this piece and probably why I should talk about him and his quote: TR was right that absolute equality and absolute justice, won't be obtain through taxation. We'll never have a society where everything is equal and probably should never have this society. We'll always have a society where some people are more productive than others and as a result will always do better than others. Not because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, but because they were better than their competition. They got a better education, understood their business better and as a result made better decisions and investments and advanced further than even some people he also had a good education and were able to get good jobs.

Teddy Roosevelt was a true Progressive because he believed in progress and using government to make things better for people. He was not Socialist Eugene Debbs (who was from the same era) politically who believed you needed a huge welfare state and even even government involvement in industry to take care of people for them.

What Teddy believed was in a regulatory state not to run business's and private employers, but to protect innocent consumers and employees from predators. That there needed to be certain rules in the economy so you wouldn't have monopolies but so consumers could purchase safe products and workers could work in safe working conditions.

Teddy also believed in a safety net for people who fall through the cracks of the American capitalist private enterprise system and need temporary financial relief when they're unemployed or are working, but don't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a welfare state to manage people's lives for them because he saw people as essentially stupid who aren't capable of making good decisions in society on their own.

So when Teddy Roosevelt says that absolute justice and absolute equality, can't be obtain through taxation, I take that to mean that you can only tax the wealthy so much to take care of everyone else. That America is not Sweden and you can't have the central government collecting all the revenue in the country and then deciding for everyone else what the people need to live well and then giving that money back equally.

What you need to do is create a society and economy where everyone has the opportunity and ability to succeed in life and be as productive as they possibly can, But then with a progressive tax system pay to the government  based on what they earned. But not to the point that it discourages them from making a lot of money in the future. As well as a regulatory state to play referee and not the head coach of private organizations and a safety net to help people get back up when they fall down.