Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The Daily Beast: Simon & Schuster- Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies Today'

Source: The Daily Beast- Republican strategist, as well as contributor for The Daily Beast and CNN Rick Wilson, with a new book about President Donald Trump. 
Source: The New Democrat

I'm going to take you down my memory lane and talk about the Republican Party that I grew up with as a kid in the 1980s and early 90s and see if anyone remembers that GOP ( when they were the GOP ) and if that party makes sense to anyone and then I'll go from there.

The Republican Party that I grew up with, was a party that was about limited government especially at the Federal level.

A party that believed in fiscal responsibility and that deficits and debt were bad, except for Ronald Reagan of course and the other father's of supply side economics who are a big part of the Donald Trump Republican Party today.

A party that opposed both right-wing and left-wing authoritarians and authoritarianism. Whether it was Communist Russia and their supporters in Europe, Communist Cuba just to the south of us. Or right-wing authoritarians like the theocratic regime in Iran and the monarchies in Arabia.

The GOP use to be a party that believed in immigration and even cultural and racial diversity. Ronald Reagan, the man who coined the phrase that America is the city on a shining hill and that we welcome immigrants from everywhere. Not just from Britain and Scandinavia. Because they believed that immigration was a plus to our economy because immigrants from third-world countries would do the work that Americans wouldn't do and would also bring skills to the high-wage jobs that Americans don't have the skills for like in new technology.

The GOP that I grew up with wasn't just a party that believed in a strong but limited national defense, but who also trusted our defense and intelligence communities. Unlike I don't know, let's say the current President who takes the word over President Vladimir Putin ( the dictator or Russia ) over his own intelligence community and national security officials.

The Republican Party today is a party that believes deficits don't matter. How do I know that? The Trump Administration inherited an economy that was growing at 3% with a 4.5% unemployment rate that created 12 million jobs during the previous 8 years and a budget deficit that was cut in half during that same period, so what do they decide to do with that?

The GOP tried to pass a plan to fund a southern border wall that no one who didn't vote for Donald Trump wants and even some Donald Trump voters don't want and after Mexico of course said they wouldn't pay for it announced they would borrow 50 billion dollars from other countries to try to pay for the wall that almost no one wants. And then passed a trillion-dollar tax cut again on the backs of American taxpayers who are going to have to pay for that tax cut even if they received any of it from interest payments to the national debt, because the tax cut wasn't paid for. It's George W. Bush borrow and spend economics all over again, but this time coming from the self-proclaimed king of debt Donald Trump.

A party that once called America the city on a shining hill and is open to immigrants from around the world, that America is a country of immigrants, now calls Latinos animals, insects, yes shitholes coming from the President of the United States. And complains about America not looking the way it use to and not being the America that they grew up with because it's now less Anglo and even European. And of course they blame that even on legal immigration because we're no longer seeing high rates of immigration from Britain and even Europe in general, because those countries are developed countries and don't have people trying to escape those countries because they can't find work, get an education, or fear for their safety, unlike Central America and parts of Mexico.

The GOP that was once a party that was hawkish towards authoritarian regimes even Russia post-Soviet Russia, now call Kim-Jung Un ( the dictator of North Korea ) an honorable man. That takes the word of right-wing Nationalist dictator President Vladimir Putin of Russia, word over the American intelligence community when he said his government didn't interfere in the 2016 American elections and didn't want Donald Trump to become President of the United States. With President Trump saying that President Putin is fine and is someone we can work with. And now views our European allies like Britain, Germany, and even Canada, as the opposition, while they view Russia and China as allies.

The title of this piece is "Everything that Donald Trump Touches Dies", which of course is Rick Wilson's title from his book and I'm going to get to that, but everything that I've written here Rick Wilson agrees with just from his own commentating on CNN. And I'm going to get to that by saying just looked at the people who use to work for President Donald Trump and where they are now.

Sean Spicer, just two years ago was a well-respected GOP Washington insider who ran the communications department for the Republican National Committee. Now he's trying to sell the book he wrote about being President Trump's Press Secretary, because he can't get a job with a major news devision or network or another job working for another Republican politician  or official, because he shot to death his own credibility working for President Trump.

Tom Price, who before he became President Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services was a well-respected U.S. Representative from Georgia, as well as doctor who chaired the House Budget Committee before he became Secretary of HHS. Was asked to resign as HHS Secretary because of his bad traveling habits and taking overly expensive travel flights at taxpayers expense.

There's a whole book that will be written about Scott Pruitt who again just two years ago was a well-respected as Attorney General for Oklahoma and is now accurately viewed as a crook who used his job and power to make his own personal life more comfortable, as well for his family.

And then you could talk about people who had credibility and characters flaws before Donald Trump becomes President and yet found themselves working for President Trump, because they fit in perfectly with Trump's lack of character and credibility. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Manigault-Newman and unfortunately many others. These people will probably never work in government again at least at the Federal level, unless they're elected by very forgiving or factually ignorant people, or people who simply don't care about character and credibility, if they like that person's politics.

Every government job that anyone could take comes with a lot of sacrifice and even risks. You're underpaid at least for what you're expected to do and the hours you put in. Your personal and family life suffers, because you put in so many hours just at the office and you're traveling a lot. But when you work for someone like Donald Trump, you put the rest of your life at risk ( not physically ) and you're ability to financially support yourself, because you're constantly put into positions where you either have to deny the obvious or act like you're simply out of the loop and don't know what's going on even in areas where you work in and have jurisdiction over. Take Secretary Kirstjen Nielson, who struggles to answer basic questions about immigration. And anyone with any self-respect and dignity, honesty at all, has to know those things even when they're considering working for someone like Donald Trump.
Source: James Wilson: CNN Tonight With Don Lemon- Rick Wilson: 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies'- CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, is one of the best shows on CNN.

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

AlterNet: Opinion- Bob Hennelly: 'Watching Reality Luxury TV Is Killing America's Economic Drive & Maybe Its Soul'

Source: AlterNet- Keeping up with The Kardashian's on the I-phone 
Source: The New Democrat

In the last 15-20 years or so with Generation X full coming of age and now with the Millennials coming of age as well, we're seeing less religion and church going in America ( except deep in the Bible Belt where that's all they have, it seems ) but more emphasis on economic wealth and becoming successful and wealthy, and famous in America.

Except for Millennials, who seem to believe that they're entitled to live in their parents basements or off of government. In that generation the people who aren't driven to be the next "OMG reality TV pop star with their own reality show and entourage" are driven to move America to Scandinavia and building a socialist welfare state so big that no one would have to work in America. The two biggest social movements in America, are celebrity/reality TV obsession and socialism.

And in some cases Millennials try to combine both social movements. The Millennials who claim to hate American capitalism, personal freedom and choice, free speech the most, are the Americans who take full advantage of those American liberal values the most. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and always have those things as far as clothes, new technology, lingo, while using those tools to bash what they claim to hate about America which is American capitalism, personal freedom, and free speech.

Apparently unaware because their i-phone didn't teach them this that American capitalism, personal freedom, our individualism is what created those fashionable items and products that they claim to love and can't live without. People who claim that eating meat is somehow animal cruelty, tend to be people who wear leather jackets and denim jeans, boots wherever they go and generally wear leather, denim, and boots together apparently unaware it's animals that gave us those fashion trends and  what those fashion staples are made from. You ever heard of lambskin, snakeskin, which is where leather jackets and boots come from.

And since we've become a country not all of us, I'm sure as hell not none of those people and I still love individualism, personal freedom, etc, but we're coming a nation where thinking and individualism, learning about things that have nothing to do with the latest celebrity or smartphone, has become unfashionable. Even things like human decency have become unfashionable. The biggest asshole whether they're a professional celebrity or not will have the most the most followers on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, whatever social network that you prefer will be the most popular on your social network of choice. Or a new technology developer, or the latest so-called reality TV star, not people who get people to think and to learn, because thinking for yourself, learning, human decency are "like so old school" with a lot of young people in America today.

Some of the most financially wealthy and successful people in America, are also some of the dumbest and least talented. Seriously, where would Paris Hilton and Khloe Kardashian be today without their wealthy father's? If not waiting on or cleaning tables, sleeping with wealthy men to pay their bills. With their current educational levels, that's what they would have to do in order to survive in America if their father's were truck drivers and their mother's were teachers. And I'm sure there's a list of dumb untalented male celebrities as well, but you get the point. If you come off as dumb, but say things that become pop catch phrases, are a little wild at least and have a dirty mouth and know how to use it, you'll be famous and wealthy in America. While responsible intelligent people who got themselves a good education, spend their lives working very hard and have to be very productive to live well in America.
Source: Alox: Top 10 Richest Reality TV Stars With Salaries - O.M.G they're, awesome!!! LOL 

Saturday, August 4, 2018

The Lip TV: Allison Hope Weiner- Interviewing Dr. James Fallon: The Brains of Serial Killers

Source: The Lip TV- The brain of a serial killer, on Crime Talk 
Source: FRS Daily Journal

I would love to go in the mind of a serial murderer ( as I call them ) to see how can someone be either so sick or evil which is different that would drive them to take the lives of innocent people and in some cases enjoy murdering people. As a lay person here I would say that you would have to be a person who lacks a conscience to put it simply. Someone who simply doesn't give a damn about anyone other than perhaps them self who gets off on hurting people because they don't care and get pleasure from that. People like Ted Bundy who was a famous serial killer as well as rapist from the mid and late 1970s who enjoyed raping women to the point it was the only kind of sex that he enjoyed. And he enjoyed killing them as well.

Source: Psychodocs- Dr. James Fallon, on Crime Talk 
So, when you have someone who perhaps doesn't fit in well in mainstream society for whatever reasons, who perhaps has a temper and low tolerance for negativity and criticism and has an out of the world view of them self that they don't believe they have any flaws and there also psychopathic, someone like a Charles Manson from the late 1960s and his Manson Family cult and his young soldiers who murdered the people he wanted them to murder, you have a very dangerous person who a normal person has no business being near, because their life can be in jeopardy from this person as a result.

Source: Skalan- Dr. James Fallon, on Crime Talk 
Psychopaths and psychopathic killers, can seem normal on the outside and even have positive characteristics like intelligence, charm, physical attractiveness as well. Ted Bundy, from the 1970s was someone with all of these characteristics and they use these characteristics to bring them in so they can make their moves on theory victims and eventually murder them. Charlie Manson, who wasn't physically attractive. Very short and slightly built, but who was very smart even though he didn't have much of a formal education, but had a pretty good idea of how the real world worked and spoke to people in a way ( his followers ) that got those young people to not just follow him, but to do for him whatever he wanted. The Manson Family, could be responsible for up to a 100 murders or more in the Los Angeles area and we only know about 10-20 of them.

The serial killers ( or serial murderers, a term that I prefer ) that I mentioned are people who murdered in private life as private citizens and as horrible as a Ted Bundy, Charlie Manson, Richard Ramirez from the 1980s were, they're almost minor players compared with dictators who ran countries with their regimes around the world who've simply murdered people because they saw them as threats to their political power. People like Saddam Hussein, Joesph Stalin, Mao, and other dictators around the world. Serial murderers, aren't reserved just for people you hear about on crime reports or the local news, but for people in government who run countries and use their power to eliminate people they see as threats to their regime.
The Lip TV: Allison Hope Weiner- Interviewing Dr. James Fallon: The Brains of Serial Killers

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

The Film Archives: Jeff Guinn- Jim Jones: 'The Most Complete Picture To Date Of This Tragedy'

Source: The Film Archives- Reverend Jim Jones, the Father of Jonestown 
Source: The New Democrat

I think Jeff Guinn the author of this book about Reverend Jim Jones and Jonestown makes a good point about how the 1960s relates to Jim Jones's movement and what became Jonestown. I would just add that the 1960s was such a divisive era and you had this huge generation of Baby Boomers who hated the 1950s and wanted something different for themselves and their families, who were politically very radical who saw things in America that they hated. Like war, poverty, racism, materialism, and wanted to change the world ( to use a phrase from the 1960s ) and create a new society and America.

Source: The Film Archives- Reverend Jim Jones in Jonestown 
People who believe in these things and are active politically, tend to at least be very open to socialism and even communism and see those philosophies as the only ways to build the society that they want. Jim Jones, even though he grew up in rural Indiana in the 1930s and 40s, was a Socialist who hated the things that his followers hated and wanted to create a new society. Who was very charming and very intelligent both for good and bad, who became a reverend in Indiana and built his own church. Who moved his church from Indiana to San Francisco which might be the capital of American socialism, who are much more tolerant of minorities and alternative lifestyles like homosexuality and saw San Francisco as the home for his new movement.

Source: The Today Show- Reverend Jim Jones's Jonestown 
The main reason why Jim Jones, moved his People's Temple from San Francisco to Guyana in South America, is because there were accurate reports from the SF media that Reverend Jones was abusing his members and even kids that went to the church. Even things like sexual assault and had he not had moved out of San Francisco maybe his church and larger organization gets closed down in San Francisco by the city government and Reverend Jones ends up in jail. Reverend Jones, had already had experience in South America and decided to move his organization to Guyana where all of his followers followed him and his group down there.

The vision of Jonestown in Guyana, I believe was very solid and he wanted to create this communitarian society, a socialist state where everything was shared and no one ever had to go without the basics in life. The main problem with Jonestown in Guyana was Jim Jones himself. He took what might have ended up becoming a socialist utopian state under sober responsible management and he turns it into a communist state. A maximum security prison where everybody who lives there is now his prisoner. And if you try to leave Jonestown, you're putting your own ,life at risk. Very similar to how North Korea looks today. And when Jones loses complete control of Jonestown, that is where he decided to murder what's left of his followers by giving them poison and then he kills himself.
The Film Archives: Jeff Guinn- Jim Jones: 'The Most Complete Picture To Date of This Tragic Saga'

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Salon Magazine: Andrew O'Hehrir- Interviewing Rob Reiner: On Why Neither Party Works Today

Source: Salon Magazine- Rob Reiner, President of the Donald Trump Hater Club 
Source: The New Democrat

I disagree with Rob Reiner on one thing in this video that Donald Trump wasn't vetted at all. I would argue that he wasn't even vetted properly. We know all about how dangerous, undisciplined, unqualified, bigoted, lacked character, lacked the most basic personal credentials that no Republican pre-Trump would give any other Republican or Democrat a pass on as far as being their presidential candidate, during the Republican primaries and he still won.

Donald Trump, labeled Mexicans as rapists when he announced for President in June, 2015.

Donald Trump claimed that John McCain, wasn't a war hero because he got captured in Vietnam.

Donald Trump's sexist attacks on then Fox News's Megyn Kelly during the first Republican presidential debate was just a couple months after his attacks on Mexicans.

Donald Trump, came out for a Muslim ban in December 2015.

The Trump University stories and how he screwed people that went to that money pit of a so-called university started breaking in early 2016.

In early spring 2016 Trump tells his supporters at one of his reality shows, I mean campaign rallies to beat the hell out of people who protest against him and he'll pay their legal fees.

Donald Trump's attacks on a gold star military family that lost their son during the Iraq War and implying that the soldier's mother didn't speak out because they don't allow that in the Muslim faith.

The Access Hollywood tape in October 2016.

The three debates where Hillary Clinton clearly looked and sounded more ready to be President than Donald Trump.

We had a tone of information and more importantly real facts and not alternative facts ( to quote White House Counsel Kellyanne Conway )  that was public for why Donald Trump wasn't just not qualified, not intellectually prepared to be President, lacked the character, the temperament, to be President, but represented a real danger to our country and government, well before he became President of the United States and the man still won. The real question is not whether Donald Trump was vetted or not, because of course he was with all the media attention that each of these stories about him got, but the real question is why Donald Trump, not just became President of the United States, but how does a man with his background, lack of qualifications, intelligence, and character, win the Republican nomination for President in the first place and put the country through this.

To go to the point that Rob Reiner made about the two-party system not working and that we need a strong Democratic Party and Republican Party, that's how Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination in the first place, because we have a weak two-party system that's about destroying the other party and not advancing an agenda that can draw popular support among American voters that's positive and shows voters who don't belong to either party why they should give Democrats or Republicans enough power to govern the country.

If we had just one party that was considered responsible enough to govern and offered that positive agenda, that party would not only have complete control of Congress, but with enough political support to actually govern. Republicans, have one, but not the other right now. A better scenario would be two strong and popular political parties that actually competed against each other with both having popular agendas leaving Americans to think I like both parties, so I'm going to let them govern together. With one party in the White House and other party having control of at least one chamber of Congress.

I would argue that Donald Trump, first won the GOP nomination because he wasn't just anti-establishment, but he's anti-Conservative. He's not a Conservative, never has been and has only being a Republican officially since 2011 or so and has always been an Independent in actuality as far as how he looks at politics and has never fitted in well with either party. We essentially have an Independent in the White House right now. The Republican Party is no longer a conservative party. They're a reactionary in the moment party that pretty much only makes decisions based on what they believe will help them politically at the given moment. At least at their leadership level and that fits Donald Trump's empty all the bullets in the gun first, figure out what all that means later approach to politics. Where everything is about now and spontaneous and thinking, intelligence, preparation, homework, is for losers.

Donald Trump, didn't first win the GOP nomination ( which was impressive enough ) because he was a Goldwater Conservative Republican who was going to turn the Federal Government back to what Conservative-Libertarians believe is the 10th Amendment role of the Federal Government which is basically no safety net or regulatory state and let the states deal with those issues themselves. Most Trump voters not only like the Federal safety net, but depend on it for their daily survival. We're talking about lower income blue-collar, older voters, who are also veterans, for the most part.

Donald Trump, won the GOP nomination because he against what the Republican Party traditionally believes in including things like character and knowledge, temperament. Who brought bigotry out in the open and made to seem OK to a lot of Republicans and even Independents. Had Trump run as a traditional Conservative Republican, he not only doesn't become President, but he never wins the GOP nomination, because there were 17 other Republicans who were more qualified and better suited to being President of the United States, including several Republicans who are young enough to be is sons.
Source: MSNBC: Hardball With Chris Matthews- Rob Reiner: On Donald Trump - Rob Reiner, on President Donald Trump's SCOTUS choice 

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- What is a Classical Liberal?

Source: The Rubin Report- There is a little liberal in every non-statist
Source: The New Democrat

I've been asked many times in the past what are my politics. I'm been accused ( if you want to put it that way ) of being a Libertarian or some other right-winger especially on social media, when I say I'm against government-run health health care and health insurance, especially when there would be no other options for health care and health insurance. Or when I come out against free speech over political correctness. My response has always been I'm a Liberal, Classical Liberal if that helps you sleep better at night.

Source: A Libertarian Future- Liberalism 
This blog is a Classical Liberal or JFK Liberal blog. This is not a social democratic or democratic socialist blog, progressive sure! In the sense that I believe in progress and through government action, but bot total government action. People who work in government God bless them all, but they're no smarter than people who work office jobs in the private sector and have to make payroll and profits every week and month.

Source: AZ Quotes- Friedrich August Von Hayek, on Liberals
So this socialist idea that if you just let government run things and create this new government program or put more money into a current government program even if that means less individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, that things would automatically get better reminds me of the saying that you have to be a narcissist to believe you're the center of the universe and are perfect, well you have to be a Socialist to believe that government at any level not just has all the answers, but always has all the answers. Especially when you're talking about a large organization whether that's run by imperfect people and in some cases mistake prone people because they're overworked and have too much responsibility.

So, that's why I'm not a Socialist democratic or otherwise because I don't believe government has all the answers and therefor you need an educated free society to be able to manage their personal and economic affairs. Which is sort of the definition of the freedom which is the freedom of self-determination and for people to chart their own course in life and be able to make out of it what they put into to. Enjoy the fruits of their labor and productivity and deal with the consequences of their mistakes and hopefully learn from them so they don't make the same mistakes in the future. And if you're wondering why I'm a Liberal, I just explained that I believe the best society is an educated free society. Not a statist society where you have a government big enough to try to manage people's lives for them.

I'm not a Libertarian, because the modern Libertarian ( let's call them ) sound like they're if not more antigovernment than anti-big government, they're at least as antigovernment as they're anti-big government. And especially believe that every form of government tax or rule is somehow some form of slavery or something and they tend to be very conspiratorial and sound like they operating off of a whole bottle of whisky or were released from some mental institution without their medicine, they tend to sound like they've lost touch of reality and live in a different universe or only only on Planet Earth as visitors, but mentally not really here. I'm not antigovernment and I don't bash government programs and government daily. I'm anti-big government, because I don't want government running our lives for us. I want want free educated people to manage their own lives for themselves.

Liberalism, ( or classical liberalism if you prefer ) is not about small government or big government , but a political philosophy that advocates civil liberties and individual rights, liberal democracy with free and fair elections along with all the individual rights both civil and economic that come from a liberal democratic society. And even a safety net for people who truly need it and for whatever reasons aren't living in freedom with the means and tools to pay their own way, but not to manage their lives for them, but to help them back up so they can live in freedom. Liberals, don't believe they're smart enough to not only manage their own lives, but to manage other people's lives as well, so why would government be even smarter and should have any more power over others lives than just themselves.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- What is a Classical Liberal?

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen-
Source: The New Democrat

This debate about liberty versus equality as if that is a real choice which it isn't and I'll get into that later, reminds me of a speech that longtime Chicago University Economics Professor Milton Friedman, who described his own politics as liberal ( or classical liberal if you prefer ) gave a speech in 1978 and he talked about liberty in equality in the same speech and made the point to put it simply that you can't have one without the other.

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen 
That without liberty and the ability for people make their own decisions and go as far as they can go on their own and make as good a life that they can for themselves, you can't have equality at least in the sense that most if not all people want equality which is that everyone living and doing well in society and not being denied access in life simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Sure! You could essentially outlaw wealth and have the central government collect most of the wealth in society and then try to spread that wealth back to the people based on what they believe people need to do well.

Source: Conservative Video News- Dave Rubin & Nadine Strossen
But when you discourage people to do well and be successful you get a lot less of it, because people will expect the government to take care of them, or they'll believe it's not worth it to be free and successful in life because government will just punish then for that by taking most of their wealth from them. Or you could have government just outlaw individual initiative and creativity and just have government try to run the economy for everyone like you would see in a Marxist-Communist state and have a country where everyone is poor like in North Korea and a society where only people with government jobs and connections are able to live well.

But when people talk about equality, they tend to talk about it in a sense where everyone is able to live well. Not where everyone is equally poor, but where people are able to succeed in life and live well. And for true equality to occur you have to have good deal of personal liberty and the freedom for people to do well and be able to make their own decisions in life and then be able to collect the rewards from their success. Which comes with investments, risk taking, and even failures.

As far as the main point of Nadine Strossen's book ( former President of the ACLU ) a woman that I have a lot of respect for and who I love politically for her liberal politics, she's just damn right about this. You way to counter hate speech is not trying to shut it up through force, but by counteracting it through intelligent free speech. Make the case for why some hateful asshole is exactly that and why what they believe is hateful.

But when the First Amendment was written, our Founding Fathers ( the Founding Liberals ) didn't have in mind protecting the rights for intelligent Ivy Leaguers to say whatever they want and have the freedom to say as many intelligent things as possible. Even though the First Amendment protects intelligent speech and love as much as hate speech.

The First Amendment was written for people who think outside of the box and say controversial things. Even to the point that they're not just criticizing people, but saying things that can be hurtful. And even saying things that are hateful, but just plain wrong like labeling an entire ethnic or racial group as criminals, invaders, rapists, etc. And perhaps you're familiar with a certain national politician who has done those things in the last few years.

I can't end this piece without talking about personal liberty here as well since that it part of the title of the piece. There is so such thing as freedom without personal liberty. Not just talking about economic freedom which is also critical in any liberal democratic free society, but also the freedom for people to think and say what they want short of inciting violence and falsely accusing people, or harassing people. But the freedom for people to make their own personal and private decisions and live their own lives and do what they want to do, short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Freedom of choice and the right to privacy which I believe as a non-lawyer protects freedom of choice in America and engage in activities that some religious folks might see as immoral, is just as important as our economic freedom and right to free speech.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty