"Food to Kill for"

On May 25th, millions of people gathered in cities all over the world to “March Against Monsanto,” protesting both the genetically modified crops they create as well as their unethical business practices. The media barely noticed.





Just a few short months ago, a Facebook page popped up which made a simple plea:



I’m tired of the poisoning of our food supply. Will you help me organize a rally in your area? May 25th, 2013. Spread the word, Please!!



March Against Monsanto Facebook page. Despite the large turnout all over the world, very little of substance is being reported through the mainstream media. Las Vegas resident Andrew Garcia, who attended yesterday’s march in the heart of Sin City joined by his girlfriend and her sister, noted that he didn’t see a single reporter or news truck at the event.



There were at least 2500 people there, and not one of them was a reporter. To actually see with my own eyes how much they are trying to cover up makes me sick.



Many media accounts that are available are based largely on one Associated Press article. The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, USA Today, and others all report on the marches with the same AP article, adding little to no actual reporting. ABC News didn’t even bother with the entire article, but just small snippets of it. One has to wonder at the reasons for not properly covering an event this widespread. Further, the article makes Monsanto sound like a saint of a company, saving the world one genetically modified crop at a time, eradicating hunger in the face of constant adversity from lunatic activists who are making a big deal out of nothing.



So what exactly is the purpose of protesting Monsanto?



Garcia says that what brought Monsanto to his attention was the 2003 documentary “The Corporation,” which tells the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, reporters for a Fox news station in Tampa, Florida. In the late 1990s, Akre and Wilson began work on a story investigating Monsanto’s use of recombinant bovine human growth hormone (or rBGH), an additive that increases a cow’s milk supply. There had been controversy surrounding rBGH, and the two reporters found that despite the FDA approval, the technology was believed to be the cause of various health concerns in both cows and humans. ”The reporters were silenced by Monsanto, forced out of business and their image destroyed,” said Garcia.



On top of that, he says, the treatment of small farmers by Monsanto has left behind a vile taste, referring to the lawsuits Monsanto has filed against small farmers for theft of intellectual property; that is, their seeds. Each Monsanto seed is encoded with patented gene technology that makes it resistant to their pesticides, for which Monsanto charges a royalty. Their dominance of the market makes it practically impossible to find seeds that haven’t been affected by such a gene. If a farmer doesn’t pay the royalty, even if it was used by no intention of their own, such as in the case of pollination, Monsanto takes them to court. Often, the court costs alone put the small farmer out of business, regardless of whether or not they win their case.



As good a reason as all the above is to protest against Monsanto, many people cite the harm created by genetically modified crops as their main motivation for bringing awareness to the issue. On the March Against Monsanto website, the group gives the following reasons under the title “Why do we march?”:



■Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.

■Monsanto’s GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world’s bee population.

■For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

On their Facebook page, March Against Monsanto estimates that two million people in fifty-five countries joined in the protest, and it is certain that many others would have joined but were, for whatever reason, unable. But, what now, after the march has passed? The protest doesn’t end, say the group organizers, just because the march has. Taking care to look at what you eat, demanding local food, and growing a garden are all wonderful ways of keeping the fight against Monsanto alive. And for those of you who are so technologically inclined, don’t forget about that ‘Buycott’ app.

"Let's Kill the Poor" cries GNoP

In the natural world, beings that are weak and unable to care for themselves are cleansed from existence either through starvation, sickness, or inability to protect themselves or escape predators, and it is best defined by the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Human beings are fortunate in that most of them possess an innate moral drive to assist those unable to care for themselves, and most governments have set in place programs to ensure no citizen will perish because they lack basic necessities of life. There was a government in Europe in the 20th century that instituted a policy of killing off what they considered “defective” human beings, and after the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler’s “Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens” (destruction of life not worthy of life) may be one of the most inhumane practices of the 20th century. Eugenics, whose prime idea was that only genetically ‘suitable’ people should be allowed to live and procreate, has been adopted and tweaked by the Republican Party and their “unsuitable” people are the 47% that Willard Romney complained are parasites he could never teach to take responsibility for their existence.




Within Romney and Republicans 47% of undesirables are senior citizens, poverty-stricken children, and the working poor who need assistance to survive the GOP’s economic malfeasance, and lacking a government-sanctioned eugenics program, Republicans are attempting to exterminate the 47% by withholding food, housing, and healthcare. Besides cutting food and housing assistance for the poor, Republicans have attempted to eliminate the Affordable Care Act because it provides healthcare coverage for the poor thus prolonging their lives, so they are depending on their cohort in Republican states to expedite the demise of millions of poor Americans. In about half the states, Republicans are rejecting Medicaid expansion, and according to their inhumane policies, it is the very poor who will never receive medical care, and although it is not outright extermination, it is a way to kill off the “parasites” and cleanse America of what Republicans label “unsuitable for life.”



The conservative Supreme Court gave Republican-controlled states the ability to restrict the poorest Americans from having access to healthcare when they allowed them to reject Medicaid expansion. The states refusing to expand Medicaid leave millions of poor people ineligible for government-subsidized health insurance while many others with slightly higher incomes receive federal subsidies to buy insurance. In states like Texas, Florida, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, which refuse to expand Medicaid, the opportunity to have healthcare insurance will be unavailable for the neediest people, and more than half of the population without health insurance reside in states that rejected Medicaid expansion. If the people in those states have income up to four times the poverty line ($11,490 to $45,960 a year for an individual) they receive federal tax credits to subsidize buying private health insurance, but millions of Americans below the poverty line will be unable to get tax credits, Medicaid, or any assistance to purchase healthcare insurance. It is a way for Republicans to slowly kill off the undesirable 47% in GOP-controlled states, and the Urban Institute estimated that 5.7 million uninsured Americans with income below the poverty line could gain access to health coverage except they live in Republican states that are not expanding Medicaid.



In Texas, the executive director of an interfaith group, Texas Impact, said that “A lot of people will come in, file applications and find they are not eligible for help because they are too poor. We’ll have to tell them, you are so poor, you cannot get anything.” Another director of an outreach group, Georgians for a Healthy Future, said “Hundreds of thousands of people with incomes below the poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid if the state moved forward with the expansion of Medicaid. As things now stand, they will not be eligible for anything. What do we do for them? What do we tell them?” Why not tell them the truth that Republicans want them sick and dead, and without a government-sponsored eugenics-type program in place, the next best thing is withholding access to medical care to accompany withholding food assistance.



A Louisiana director of a primary care organization explained that in his state “If the breadwinner in a family of four works full time at a job that pays $14 an hour, he or she will be eligible for insurance subsidies. But if they make $10 an hour, they will not be eligible for anything.” It explains the Republicans’ refusal to consider raising the minimum wage, and why they want to eliminate overtime pay; because if they can prevent the working poor from qualifying for tax credits to buy health insurance, they can deny giving them any healthcare assistance because they don’t make enough money. Bruce Lesley, president of a child advocacy group, First Focus, said “Trying to explain that will be a nightmare,” but he can tell poor children and their parents that it is Republicans’ form of eugenics and maybe convince them that slow death from lack of healthcare is better than being herded into gas chambers.



Republicans hate any American that is not in the 1-2% of the richest income earners, but they cannot tolerate the 47% of Americans they consider a drag on the wealthy. It is true that killing off 5.7 million poverty-level Americans will not make a huge dent in the 47-percents’ numbers, but it is a nice start in eradicating what Republicans call parasites and takers, and they are likely disappointed it is a slow method of exterminating the poor, but it is a death sentence all the same. Republicans cannot claim their refusal to expand Medicaid is a fiscal decision because it will not cost their states one penny until 2017 and then their share is only 10% of the cost of expansion. The people that do earn enough over the poverty level to qualify for assistance should not breathe easy because Republican-controlled states are cutting their wages, robbing pensions, and passing “right to work” for less laws that inform they are in jeopardy of falling into poverty and joining the 5.7 million Americans slated for slow death from lack of healthcare and it includes retired Americans, working poor families, and those who earn enough to receive tax credits to purchase healthcare insurance.



Republicans in Congress have attempted to assist their state-level cohorts in their slow-death eugenics programs for the past two years with their persistent calls for giving states block grants for healthcare, food stamps, and housing assistance and allowing Republican governors and legislatures to use the federal funds as they see fit which is usually more tax cuts for the rich and corporations. It is why high-value corporate donors are pouring money into campaign coffers to elect more Republican governors and state legislatures, because what they cannot accomplish at the federal level, they will achieve in the states as evidence by Republican-controlled states refusing to expand Medicaid as well as cutting every other type of assistance for the 47%.

Pope Francis rocks the World!

Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.




During his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis emphasized the importance of "doing good" as a principle that unites all humanity, and a "culture of encounter" to support peace.



Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark, Francis explained how upset Jesus' disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio.



“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ??possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say:



"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Responding to the leader of the Roman Catholic church's homily, Father James Martin, S.J. wrote in an email to The Huffington Post:



"Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone. That's always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying in the First Letter to Timothy that Jesus gave himself as a "ransom for all." But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it's a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories."

Of course, not all Christians believe that those who don't believe will be redeemed, and the Pope's words may spark memories of the deep divisions from the Protestant reformation over the belief in redemption through grace versus redemption through works.



The pope's comment has also struck a chord on Reddit, where it is the second most-shared piece.



More from Reuters:



Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good, Pope Francis said on Wednesday in his latest urging that people of all religions - or no religion - work together.







The leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics made his comments in the homily of his morning Mass in his residence, a daily event where he speaks without prepared comments.







He told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.







"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.







"Just do good and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical conversation in which someone told a priest: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."







Francis's reaching out to atheists and people who belong to no religion is a marked contrast to the attitude of former Pope Benedict, who sometimes left non-Catholics feeling that he saw them as second-class believers.

 And for those who insist that Francis is the Anti Christ ,  Satan, and the thousands of other names. Let's just sit back and wait. Personaly even not being a Catholic I think he's off to a good start!

Who likes the IRS ?

I’ve just got to take one more spin around the contrived IRS “scandal” track.



The Tea Party and its radical “Patriot” offspring are political organizations. They’re gaming the system by avoiding taxes by claiming alleged no-profit status. If I had any reservations about the IRS, it would be the question of how dense do you have to be as an investigative agency not to pick up on that irrefutable fact?



I will help out the easy-to-fool bureaucrats with some real life facts and figures, but first an observation. Maybe, just maybe, the IRS is heavy with Tea Party sympathizers. The IRS’ newly-resigned Interim Commissioner, Steven T. Miller, was once Deputy Commissioner for Services and enforcement under G.W. Bush. One of the entities he oversaw was the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Agencies Division tasked with looking into non-profit organizations. Maybe this is all a scam to make it look like the Tea Party and Patriot organizations were being intentionally targeted and gee, golly whiz, they’re just as honest as they can be. Why, we didn’t find anything suspicious. Maybe this phony patina of “the letter of the IRS law” behavior will spare any future snooping into the radical right’s non-profit business. There’s my paranoia. By the way, Daniel Werfel, the new acting IRS head, comes from the White House Budget office and has also worked for Republicans. Let us continue.



A lot has been made of the IRS wanting to know who Tea Party donors and money supporters were while processing applications. This is apparently outside the bounds of the IRS right to know. It’s not outside my bounds and it’s no secret. The Koch brothers fund the political Pied-a-Terre for the Tea Party with substantial fiscal input from FreedomWorks. Jane Mayer let that cat out of the back way back in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker Magazine.



Mayer credits David and Charles Koch and other conservative foundations with greasing the tea party propaganda skids with multiple-millions of dollars. Organization and implementation money mostly came from FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity (AFP). David Koch and Koch Industries board member, David Fink, founded the latter.



Here are the requirements for retaining tax-exempt non-profit status as a 501 (c) (3) taken from Title 26: Internal Revenue Code, Part 1, Income taxes…

(3) Authorization of legislative or political activities. An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its articles expressly empower it:

(i) To devote more than an insubstantial part of its activities to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise; or

(ii) Directly or indirectly to participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.



The easy conclusion is that the groups under scrutiny simply don’t meet those requirements.



Digging deeper into this tea party, Republican, political propaganda abyss, let’s take a peek at a recent South Carolina Tea Party convention speaker lineup. At the podium was the most right-wing Senator in all the land, Jim DeMint, just before leaving the Senate and assuming the leadership of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. Also making his way to the dais, Representative, Tim Scott, damn near as right-wing as DeMint and soon to assume his Senate seat. It’s Scott’s vacated seat that Mark Sanford recently won. This moral and ethical misfit was greeting by fellow House Republicans as a conquering hero.



Meanwhile back at the convention, Dick Armey, who at that time was still in the good graces of FreedomWorks, spread some of his predictable BS. Shortly thereafter Armey left his consultancy with the organization as FreedomWorks guaranteed him $400,000 a year until he was 92 (potentially $8 million if he were to live that long), to prevent a threatened Armey lawsuit; something about Matt Kibbe, another “FreedomWorker.” Kibbe was being groomed to be the new face of the organization. Armey accused Kibbe of pocketing book royalties that should have gone to FreedomWorks. The media hinted there was a gun involved. Yikes!



The State Republican Party Chairman said a few words, as ironically did Kibbe. There were a total of 4 FreedomWorks speakers over the two-day confab. The Tea Party Patriots founder spoke the first day. Tea Party state convention delegates also heard from the Republican governor, the Attorney General, Treasurer and the State’s Education Superintendent. There were also several “experts” on assorted issues (“Free Market Warrior”, Sharia Law, the fair tax) all slanted waaaay to the right. Appropriately, Michele wound things up.



According to the Southern Pverty Law Center, there were about 149 “patriotic” groups in 2008. Then a black man up and got himself elected president. The 2010 number of racists ‘er patriot groups skyrocketed to 1,274. Don’t know the latest numbers, but Obama is still in office so I’m betting they’re higher yet. As for tea party organizations, they number about 600-700 at latest count. Combined, you’ve got about 2,000 of these right-wing propaganda centers.



In light of what you’ve just read, please recall the core imperative for claiming a tax-exemption. No, it’s not the fact the 501 (c) (3) is engaging in political activity. It’s the imperative that “politics cannot be the primary mission.” For (c) (4′s) the requirements are a little more stringetn. So, if you’re nothing but a right-wing political mouthpiece; if that’s all you do all day, every day, the IRS is going to deny your application as a non-profit. Even if the Kochs stuff your pockets with money and Glenn Beck sings your praises. That’s why you’ve drawn special attention and asked to provide more info. Yes, you’re being rightfully “targeting” by the IRS.



In addition to “targeting”, the IRS was also accused of causing long delays because of their questions and record-producing demands of the applicants. Isn’t it just possible that the tea party or patriot organizations themselves took the extra time, hiding, changing and camouflaging certain requested information and stretching out the process themselves for PR purposes? Yes, it’s very possible!



Even though not a single application has been denied to this point, the tea party and patriot organizations have been taken down a peg. They thought their ‘Koch and friends’ Money Monkeys had insulated them against irritants like abiding by IRS regulations. Interesting the pressure would come from Cincinnati, not exactly the epicenter of progressive thought.

(breaking) FOX NEWS

IRS Scandal another Republican LIE!

So you have heard that the IRS was targeting the "Tea Party groups" well no one in Congress bother to read the law. Which I will allow you to read in a moment  But the real Scandal was commented in 1954 when the IRS read and changed the law. Her it is

IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. (Not to be political what is what most of these tea party groups are using their tax exempt status for-none were denied by the way) So on with the witch hunt.

Notice the words Exclusively now what was so wrong in 1954 was the IRS changed the meaning of Exclusively to primarily for the promotion of social welfare. These applications were false and misleading not only on the Right but on the left as well.  And the Americans who contribute to these groups are just low information voters. Sad but  true.

But of course no one in (Congress) Washington D. C. is smart enough to read the law . It's "Get Obama" all over again!!

We have without a doubt the lamest Congress that I have ever seen! So when you vote remember be careful what you wish for.  

NRA Convention Sells "Ex-Girlfriend" Target That Bleeds When You Shoot It

 

At the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Houston, Texas this weekend, a company that sells shooting targets "designed to help YOU prepare for the upcoming Zombie outbreak" displayed much of what is wrong with the pro-gun movement with its foul "Ex-Girlfriend" target that bleeds when you shoot it. The more you shoot the iconization of the woman you hate (a 'slut' with her large breasts bulging out of her tanktop) the more she bleeds and her body, once sexy, becomes mangled. It is a startling reminder of the normalization of violence against women in America, and the latest in delegitimization of the pro-gun lobby's claims that firearms are an equalizer for women.

Zombie Industries (which also sold a life-sized target with an uncanny resemblance to President Obama, but pulled it from the convention following controversy) sells 15 different zombie targets, but only one -- the ex-girlfriend -- is female.  In another reminder that the company -- and gun industry at large --  has little regard for how damaging its product is to women, its website says "To discriminate against Women by not having them represented in our product selection would be just plain sexist.”

Thanks but no thanks. News flash to Zombie Industries: Violence against women, particularly by intimate partners, is a huge problem in America. In fact, "Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women – more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined." In 2010, nearly six times more women were shot by and killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances than were killed by male strangers. It's not surprising, considering a woman's chances of being killed by her abuser multiply by more than seven if he has access to a firearm.



In America, women are targets, especially when it comes to guns.




As Elizabeth Plank writes in PolicyMic,



Gun violence is a gendered issue since it impacts women and men in very different ways. Because women are more vulnerable to violence within the home than men (and men are most often the perpetrators of violence against women), the presence of a gun makes females less safe, not more. How do we know? A woman's likelyhood of a violent death within the home actually increases by 270% when a gun is kept inside the house. Homicide figures don't lie. Having a gun within their possession didn't protect women from murder. In fact, it accurately predicted their higher likelyhood of death.




It's every bit as disgusting as it sounds.



Gun violence is a gendered issue since it impacts women and men in very different ways. Because women are more vulnerable to violence within the home than men (and men are most often the perpetrators of violence against women), the presence of a gun makes females less safe, not more. How do we know? A woman's likelyhood of a violent death within the home actually increases by 270% when a gun is kept inside the house. Homicide figures don't lie. Having a gun within their possession didn't protect women from murder. In fact, it accurately predicted their higher likelyhood of death.



When at least three women in the US are killed by an intimate partner daily, selling "ex-girlfriend" targets that normalize a phenomenon of often deadly violence against women is an outrage that demands accountability. Plank is calling for Americans to "make sure those numbers go down, not up," and that "companies like Zombies Industries know that we're not buying it." She recommends all justifiably outraged folk ping Zombie Industries on Twitter ( @ZombieInd), using the hash tag #NotBuyingIt.



Here's what she offers as sample tweet:



@ZombieInd Stop promoting men's violence against women. 1 in 3 women women murdered were killed by an intimate partner. #NotBuyingIt.



Give 'em Hell.

Not all PhD's are equal

Jason Richwine, co-author of a Heritage Foundation study which said citizenship for immigrants would cost the U.S. $6.3 trillion, has said that Hispanic immigrants with low-IQ’s will have generations of family members with low-IQ’s as well.


Heritage immigration study co-author: Hispanics will have low-IQ children and grandchildren


A much-awaited study by The Heritage foundation was blasted by Democrats and prominent conservative organizations alike, after it calculated the cost of undocumented immigrants becoming citizens would be $6.3 trillion.



Now a 2009 dissertation by the co-author of the study, Jason Richwine, has surfaced, which shows he believes many immigrants have low IQs — particularly singling out Hispanic immigrants — and they should be kept out of the country.



“The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations,” he wrote. “The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”



He also identified Hispanic immigrants as the target of his low-IQ theories.



“No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against,” he added.



Mike Gonzalez, Vice President of Communications for The Heritage Foundation, issued a statement saying, “This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation. Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.”



Reyna Guerra-Vega. a DREAMer and deferred action recipient who graduated with honors from Arizona State University, says many like her are evidence that Richwine’s comments are wildly out of bounds.



“This is extremely discouraging,” she says. “Plenty of studies have shown that immigrants have a positive outcome economically and socially as well. There are education gaps but those change over time.”



Jeff Hauser, with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), says these beliefs show why Heritage is really against immigration reform.



“The fact that heritage sought out and hired a bigot who thinks Latinos have a lower IQ than non-Latinos is offensive,” he says. “The one thing that comes out of it is it rips the veil off of heritage and makes clear that their opposition to immigration reform is based on bigotry rather than policy.”


Jorge-Mario Cabrera of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), agreed.



“If immigration was based on IQ levels, the U.S. would be a society in danger of extinction,” he says. ”It is absolutely reprehensible for The Heritage Foundation to replace real solutions with conjectures and blatantly attack recent immigrants.”



The reaction from Latinos and non-Latinos across social media was swift in condemning Richwine.

Voices you won't hear at the NRA

How many more must die?

Why I am a liberal

Liberal politics refers to the movement or philosophy focusing on the overall development of individual freedom through the welcoming of new ideas. Liberalism assumes that people have the ability to act in a rational manner, while recognizing and solving problems to improve the world in which they live.




Liberal politics is often times looked at as the opposite of conservatism. In politics, conservatism is the desire to maintain the same way of doing things and avoid reform at all costs.



Those with liberal beliefs support the same ideas, some of which include: liberal democracy, free and fair elections, constitutionalism, free trade, human rights, and freedom of religion.



The two “categories” of liberalism are classical and social. The classical variant first became popular in the 18th century, with social liberalism catching on during the 20th century.



Both in political and intellectual terms, liberalism is more or less a modern way of thinking with its history dating back to the 17th century. John Locke is often times credited as being the creator of liberalism. In short, he believed that absolutism in government should be replaced by the rule of law; that citizens had a right to liberty, life, and property; and that those in charge should be held accountable by the consent of the governed. Although Locke died in 1702, his beliefs and political stance on liberalism has lived on.



During the French Revolution and American Revolution the use of liberal beliefs came to the forefront. During the 19th century liberal governments were established in many parts of the world including North America, Latin America, and Europe.



Today, there are several “political opponents” to liberalism including: military dictatorship, conservatism, and fundamentalism.



Although there are other political beliefs, liberalism has been established across the globe and has played a big part in the growth of civil liberties and civil rights.



In the US, liberalism can be traced back to former president Franklin Roosevelt. While he was the first president to strongly believe in this form of politics, many followed in his footsteps. For example, John F. Kennedy was a well known liberal. This statement from Kennedy shows his thoughts on liberalism: “Someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions…someone who cares about the welfare of the people.”



Since its inception in the 17th century, liberal politics and this way of thinking has grown by leaps and bounds.



Political scientist Alan Wolfe put it best when he wrote, “liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question.