Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Thursday, April 19, 2018

John Birch Society: John W. McManus- 'Martin Luther King Doesn't Deserve Adulation'

Source: Inside JBS- Dr. Martin L King's 1963 March on Washington-
Source: The New Democrat Plus

This is how the Far-Right in America who perhaps today would be called the Alt-Right, what I and others call the New-Right of Far-Right right-wing Nationalists and tribalist’s in America who view themselves as the real Americans and everyone else who doesn’t share their cultural, religious, and nationalist views, as the Un-Americans and people who are immoral and in some cases should be in jail, like a lot of Donald Trump’s supporters do, this is how they feel about the great and unfortunately late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

From The John Birch Society

“Earlier this month, a flood of reminders about the death of Martin Luther King  as all elements of the mass media told Americans about the anniversary of a gunman killing this paragon of virtue and bravery on April 4, 1968. The reports insisted that King was the nation’s most eminent apostle of nonviolence, a heroic advocate of peace in our nation’s racially turbulent era, and an exponent of all virtues. The truth is that King was a highly flawed individual whose actual strategy for change wasn’t peace. The strategy he relied on consisted mainly of a process he had learned from known communists, whose indisputable goal was the destruction of our nation. Mrs. Julia Brown, who went undercover for the FBI for more than nine years as a member of the Communist Party in Cleveland, Ohio, gives a testament to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s connection to the Communist Party:

I learned many surprising things while I served in the Communist Party for the FBI. Communist leaders told us about the demonstrations that would be started, the protest marches, the demands that would be made for massive federal intervention.

… Wherever we went and whatever we did, we were to promote race consciousness and resentment, because the Communists know that the technique of divide and conquer really works.

We were also told to promote Martin Luther King, to unite Negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some sort of national hero.”

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI believed the same things about Dr. King, or that’s what they claimed that Dr. King’s movement was being infiltrated by Communists as part of Communist Party USA. That this wasn’t about an equal and civil rights movement for African-Americans, but about some Communist conspiracy to take over the U.S. Government and replace it with a Communist State. That they were supporters of Fidel Castro, instead of young Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, who were simply trying to defeat racism under law. And create a society where all Americans constitutional rights are enforced equally regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

The Far-Right in America and that includes groups like The John Birch Society and the militant violent factions of that movement like the Ku Klux Klan, are smart enough today that if the debate becomes about whether non-European-Americans should have the same rights as European-Americans, of course they will lose that debate and were already starting to lose that debate by the mid 1960s.

But if they can make the debate about good guys meaning them the real Americans, against criminals and terrorists and Communists who are supposed to be the civil rights marchers and activists, they might win that debate and seem like the reasonable people in that debate. And argue, “that the civil rights activists don’t want civil rights and equal rights, they want communism instead. So of course the FBI and other law enforcement agencies should monitor and arrest these people and even use violence agains them, because they’re Communists.”

This line of Far-Right thinking ( if you want to be generous and call it thinking ) has already been debunked. There were Communists that were part of the civil rights movement, but they were just Communist ideologues, not activists looking to overthrow the U.S. Government, but instead people who had Communist beliefs but were marching for civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities in America who were discriminated against. To say that the civil rights movement was really a Communist movement in disguise, is an old Joe McCarthy tactic from the 1950s known as guilt by association. “That if you know Communists, or have even had one conversation with them, you must be a Communist yourself.” Which is simply a form of right-wing fascism.
Source: Classical Media: Dr. Martin L. King- I Have a Dream Speech: Full Speech

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Jacinto Ruffew: Shelley Winters- Full Disclosure A&E Biography

Source: Jacinto Ruffew- Actor Charles Laughton & Hollywood Goddess Shelley Winters-
Source: Jacinto Ruffew: Shelley Winters- Full Disclosure A&E Biography

This might sound cold, but when I think of Shelley Winters I think of Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, but with substance as well as style. The Blonde Bombshell with a brain, The Blonde Bimbo who wasn't a bimbo. She had the looks, she had the body, the personality, but she was so smart, quick, honest and one of the best senses of humors Hollywood has ever seen at least. In many ways she reminds me of Joan Rivers. Someone who always had a wisecrack or monologue on the top of her head, with half of that humor aimed at herself.

One of the smartest, sharpest, self-deprecating senses of humors that we've ever seen. Which is why her interviews were so great and why when she would go on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, it would seem like she was the stand up comedian on the show and not Johnny. Because she was so quick and funny and could crack up great comedians like Johnny Carson. And why she became a great writer later in her life. Shelley's brain was so big that she was always thinking to the point that she had an opinion on everything. She took notes about everything that she did which is how she was able to become the writer that she became and wrote several autobiographies that were deep in how personal they were talking about all the conquests that she had with men and her relationships.

I believe some of her best movies are Executive Suite from 1954, where William Holden I believe is the best star in the movie. But where Shelley plays and important role in the movie as a secretary in that company and wife of one of the executives of that company in that movie.

The Big Knife from 1955, where she basically plays herself in that movie. The Blonde Bombshell actress, who is tired of playing blonde bimbos as an actress and is ready for bigger roles. Who has a big mouth, personality, and brain as well and knows the dirt on key people in Hollywood and is ready to spill that dirt. Who is later killed in that movie because she knows too much.

The Chapman Report from 1962, which also featured Jane Fonda and Glynis Johns, where she plays a middle age wife who is having an affair with a younger man. And feels the need to talk about her affair with a therapist because she feels guilty about it. Again playing a role that is close to home for her.

Harper from 1966, which also featured Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall, where she plays an aging alcoholic blonde bombshell who becomes fat. And once again playing an actress with a big brain, big mouth., who knows and talks too much.

Shelley Winters is one of the cutest, prettiest, sexiest, smartest, honest, funniest, people who has ever worked in Hollywood. Perhaps who has ever worked anywhere. She was so adorable and funny and could combine those attributes so well together. Able to make fun of other people and situations or herself and do it in a way where she didn't come off as bitchy but someone having a good time. Pointing out negative aspects about someone or something in a critical but not insulting way. She really would've made a great character on the sitcom Seinfeld and gone one on one with any of the cast members on that show. And I just wish there were more smart, funny, adorable people in America, because people like that are so much fun and so refreshing.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Hollywood Reporter: Susan Lacy & Jane Fonda in Five Acts- From Hedonism To Activism

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Hollywood Goddess Jane Fonda-
Source: The Hollywood Reporter: Susan Lacy & Jane Fonda in Five Acts- From Hedonism To Activism

Jane Fonda is a bit of an enigma for me because on one side she's one of my favorite actresses. She's not just one of the  best actresses of her generation and in the same class as Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood, and many others, but she's one of the best actresses ever. I believe people who hate her politics would probably give her that.

But then on the other side she's one of the most famous political activists that the New-Left in America ( Far-Left Socialists and Communists ) that America has. People who see America as the real evil empire in the world, as a racist, selfish, militarist, corporate fascist dictatorship, country that should be put down and overthrown. At least in the late 1960s and early 1970s, she was as Far-Left ideologically as The Weather Underground, Students For a Democratic Society and other New-Left political action groups of the late 1960s and 1970s.

The early 1970s is where Jane Fonda got the nickname Hanoi Jane, because she essentially labeled America as the bad guys in the Vietnam War. She toured in North Vietnam with people that America was fighting in that war. She labeled President Richard Nixon as a war criminal. Her early political activism of the early and mid 1960s was in support of the American civil rights movement. Which I give her credit for as a supporter of that movement as well. But by the late 1960s it became about the Vietnam War and as someone who is opposed to that war myself and if I was alive back then I would've been writing against the war and doing other things, it's not being against the Vietnam War where I differ with Jane Fonda. But how she opposed the war.

Robert Kennedy was opposed to the war at least when he was in the U.S. Senate and one of the strongest opponents of the war while in Congress, but he was never an opponent of the American military and our service personal. Or saw America as some bad country and part of some evil empire. He opposed the war based on facts and didn't use hyperbolic rhetoric to make his case against the war. But always stayed with the facts that it was a cvil war and wasn't the job of America to fight other countries wars for them.

Jane Fonda is a very bright, beautiful, adorable, sexy, great actress, who has always viewed herself as more than an actress as she always has been. Several of her movies are some of my favorite movies like The China Syndrome from 1979, California Suite from 1978, The Chapman Report from 1962, and perhaps a few others. But I don't believe you can talk about Jane Fonda at least when you're talking about her career and just focus on the positive aspects of her life. She's still one of the most controversial people in America because of her radical political activism especially as it relates to the Vietnam War. 

Monday, April 16, 2018

The Washington Post: George Will- 'Saying Goodbye To Football: Baseball is The True American Pastime'

Source: The Washington Post
Source: The Washington Post: George Will- 'Saying Goodbye To Football: Baseball is The True American Pastime'

I'm a big fan of baseball myself. Along with football, baseball is the only sport that I can follow for the entire season and actually still enjoy watching regular season games. Not just with the Orioles who I grew up with in Bethesda, Maryland and still consider them to be my number one team even with the Nationals now in Washington. And the Nationals who brought Major League Baseball back to the nation's capital where it's always belonged.

I just don't get the same satisfaction from the NBA or NHL with those two leagues today and I'm only interested in those leagues as far as how the Wizards and Capitals are doing as far as their playoff contention and to a certain extent their playoff games. I don't feel the need to watch the NBA Finals or Stanley Cup Finals anymore. It's just not that interesting for me anymore. That just might be me growing up and having better things to do in June now, or the quality of those leagues especially the NBA, not being what they were in the 1980s when I was a big fan of the NBA especially.

I'm not a fan of the current Roger Goodell and this league really is his league and he now owns it. It's a league where defense is discouraged, where the average playoff team probably throws the ball 60% of the time, because the NFL wants scoring and high-octane offense over everything else. Where playoff teams only have enough defense in order to get key stops towards the end of games. Where certain franchises are marketed and weighed more than others, because they're popular and the NFL believes if those markets are promoted more and better than others, that will somehow make the NFL more profitable. And of course I'm thinking of a certain franchise that plays near Boston, but they're other franchises that the NFL sees as the faces of the NFL with the Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, and perhaps others. The NFL is now a celebrity oriented entertainment corporation, instead of a major pro sports league.

But where I disagree with George Will, has to do with the MLB becoming more popular than the NFL at some point. Even with the ratings and attendance down in the NFL ( as they should be ) Americans and this goes back to the early 1970s or so, prefer sports where there's a lot of action instead of seeing a lot of guys standing around on a field waiting for something to happen. Baseball like pool, is very interesting even with the delays in between action on the field.

But the reason why the NHL is a major pro sports league in America now is because of the constant fast paced action on the field. The hard-hitting and seeing these athletes do some incredible things on skates and on the ice. Even with the dangers of football, the only thing that I can see bringing that league down to the point where it's no longer the most popular league in America ( if not the world ) is Roger Goodell himself.

And Americans get fed up with the corporate celebrity driven entertainment oriented format of the league. With celebrities being taken seriously as real NFL analysts ( to use as an example ) and Americans decide that they want their sports to just be their sports and their entertainment and celebrity news, to just be those things. But not all combined in the same pot. Which is what you get with the NFL today. 

Friday, April 13, 2018

The Aspen Institute: David Brooks- On Conservative and Liberal Values

Source: The Aspen Institute- Columnist David Brooks-
Source: The Aspen Institute: David Brooks- On Conservative and Liberal Values

If you just arrived on Planet Earth yesterday and were an adult and two of the first things you observed were supposed to be what it means to be a Conservative and Liberal and what conservatism and liberalism are supposed to be, you would probably think Conservatives are simply bigots who hate anyone who isn't of European especially Anglo-Saxon background, who isn't a Christian especially a Protestant and who isn't male. That conservatism is simply an authoritarian bigoted political philosophy that is about conserving everything in society for Europeans especially English-Europeans in America and especially Protestant males.

And that Liberals are simply statists. In some cases democratic, but in many other cases communist who believe European-Americans are all bigots, unless they come from the Northeast or West Coast and were educated there as well. Who hate European-Americans again unless they come from one of the coasts and were raised there. The Northeast and West Coast, that is and believe the role of government is to take care of non-Europeans in America and to punish Europeans for being successful.

That Liberals are supposed to be people who believe that anyone who doesn't look at the world as they do are basically idiots who need to be babysat by government. That freedom is dangerous and it only gives people the freedom to make mistakes. That free speech is only the freedom to offend non-Europeans. That capitalism and property rights are selfish. That even education and self-inprovent are dangerous things, because it means that people would be able to obtain the power and freedom to live independently and be able to think and act for themselves.

Now, I just gave you a pretty good idea about what conservatism and liberalism aren't. What it doesn't mean to a Conservative and what it doesn't mean to be a Liberal. The anti-conservative views when it comes to conservatism and the illiberal views when it comes to liberalism. Now, how about what it actually means to be a Conservative and what conservatism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism actually is.

I agree with David Brooks about one thing which seems to be a common theme when I hear him speak, at least about public policy and philosophy. That conservatism is about conserving tradition and a certain way of life in America. Which is different from saying that the role of government is force a way of life on the rest of the country and force everybody to basically live as straight fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals. Which is what Christian-Conservatives who today are basically Christian-Nationalists believe, that the problem with the America is personal freedom and individualism and that Americans shouldn't have the freedom to live their own lives and have their own lifestyles.

My personal view of what it means to be a Conservative in the political sense, comes from Mr. Conservative Senator the late Barry Goldwater. Who said that he wanted big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, and classrooms. He wanted big government out of our personal and economic affairs. He believed in limited government and federalism and that the role of government was to protect Americans from predators both foreign and domestic, but not try to protect Americans from themselves and punish Americans for their own personal decisions. And that a big role of government was to conserve the U.S. Constitutional and our constitutional rights. Not conserve some fundamentalist Protestant Christian way of life and to force everybody to live under the same religious and cultural values.

For me as a Liberal, defining Liberal and liberalism is very easy for me. A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy what some people might call classical liberalism, but what I just call liberalism and liberal democracy. That government should be limited and there to defend our constitutional rights and civil liberties, including our property rights. That everyone in America is the same at least in the sense that no one is better simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender and that everyone has the same civil rights and are all entitled to the same equal and constitutional rights. Liberals believe in limited government, the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, individual rights. A safety net for people who truly need it, but not having a government big enough to manage people's lives and to force everyone to live equally from an economic standpoint. Socialists believe in forcing equality on everyone. Liberals believes in quality opportunity for everyone, which is different.

Now, if you just watch Fox News and MSNBC, you might think Conservatives are from Mars and Liberals are from Saturn. Two completely different planets with very little if anything in common. Thousands if not millions of miles way ideologically. But if you look at the American political spectrum Conservatives are on the center-right and Liberals are on the center-left. Ideologically they're political opponents ( not enemies ) but have the most in common ideologically of any two political factions on the American political spectrum. With the Socialists ( both democratic and communist ) and the Christian-Nationalists, having the least in common. Conservatives and Liberals both believe in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, our federal form of limited government. But differ when it comes to government's role in the economy and national security. But don't live in two on two different planets ideologically. As much as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree with this.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

AHC: Mafia's Greatest Hits- Sam Giancana

Source: AHC- John F. Kennedy-
Source: AHC: Mafia's Greatest Hits- Sam Giancana

Sam Giancana to me at least was a real life Hollywood gangster. He is the gangster that we see in a lot of the Hollywood Italian Mafia movies the gangster in charge who made all the decisions as it related to his crime family the one guy you couldn't afford to have on your case because it meant your life would literally be on the line. Whether you were a gangster yourself who even worked for his crime family, an associate who did business with his crime family. And of course any law enforcement agent of investigator who was trying to bring Giancana and his family down. Or a politician who was somewhat crooked at least in the sense that they relied on organize crime family power and influence to get reelected or elected to the next office.

The Kennedy Family especially Joe sr. is a perfect example of that. Joe's son Jack, doesn't get elected President in 1960 had he not just won Illinois but Chicago as well. Which is a big reason why Sam Giancana and his crime family hated the Kennedy Administration so much when they came into power in the early 1960s, especially Attorney General Bob Kennedy but his brother President Jack Kennedy, because Giancana felt betrayed by The Kennedy's when the U.S. Justice Department started their war on organized crime led by Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General in the early 1960s. Since Giancana had a major role in seeing that Jack Kennedy won Chicago and Illinois in 1960. He felt the The Kennedy's owed him and would say out of his way and let him run his crime business.

Sam Giancana was more than just a Hollywood gangster in the sense that he looked like the gangster that we tend to see in gangster movies. Similar to Benjamin Bugsy Siegel the famous Jewish gangster who had a big role in Las Vegas being what it is today, Giancana had friends in Hollywood. Frank Sinatra, Joe Kennedy who was a major investor in Hollywood films. Giancana liked being around entertainers especially Hollywood entertainers and wanted to party with them and hang out with them. As ruthless a killer that Giancana was Phyllis McGuire who was a Hollywood actress, was one of Giancan's girlfriends. She was a gorgeous Hollywood actress and Giancana was a gangster and a killer, a little man in stature and yet they fell for each other.

Sam Giancana and his crime family, also represent the best and perhaps only legitimate alternative theory to Lee H. Oswald being the lone killer and conspirator in the JFK assassination. Because they had the access, influence, and all the motives in the world to assassinate President Kennedy because of what President Kennedy's Justice Department led by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were doing to bring down organized crime in America with Giancana being one of their major targets. Giancana was no John Gotti. So much smarter and more powerful than Gotti. Giancana was a survivor who never served much time at all in prison and had one of the longest and most powerful carriers in organized crime.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Liberty Pen: Jordan Peterson- Inside The Marxist Worldview

Source: Liberty Pen
Source: Liberty Pen: Jordan Peterson- Inside The Marxist Worldview

I agree with Jordan Peterson that Karl Max and his supporters seem to have this all or nothing attitude when it comes to economics. That if you allow wealth and success in the economy, those things only happen because people who aren't wealthy and successful are left in poverty. That wealth and success can only happen at the cost of others with the cost being that people are left in poverty struggling just to survive. That they don't believe that you can have a system where everyone or at least most people are able to do well in life because wealth and success are incentivized. With a strong education system and a tax and regulatory structure that incentivizes success over poverty.

I'm not sure that is my main problem with Marxists and Marxism, but it's towards the top of the list. That economic freedom and private enterprise only produces two types of people in the economy. The haves which are the people who are doing well in the economy. And the have nots the people who aren't doing well in the economy. And that they only assume that the people who are doing well are successful because they stole from everyone else, were born to wealth, or because they were rewarded based on their race and ethnicity. And that the people who aren't doing well is because the wealthy stole from them or they were held down because of their race or ethnicity.

So Marxists and Socialists in general including Democratic Socialists today, have a bad analysis for why some people tend to do well while others don't do well in the economy and they tend to follow up with that bad analysis with bad solutions. Sort of like the doctor who doesn't know what's wrong with you physically, but believes they do and prescribes the wrong prescription to what you don't have. Which just makes whatever condition that you're suffering from even worst while your doctor still doesn't know what's wrong with you.

The socialist solution whether you're talking about democratic or Marxists, tends to be the wrong solution to the wrong problem. They believe the problem with the American economy and private economies in general outside of Britain and Scandinavia and perhaps France, is that wealth and success are not just allowed but encouraged. And what they would do instead of to essentially outlaw wealth and replace it with what they would call total equality on everyone. Forcing everyone to be able to survive with the same amount of money and resources in life. Even if some people are more successful and productive than others.

So Karl Marx and his followers even the Democratic Socialists of the world who wouldn't go as far as nationalizing the entire economy and just stop short with higher taxes on private property and income, as well as putting the central government in charge of providing most of the base human insurances that people get in life to live well like health care and health insurance Bernie Sanders and others, not just have a bad analysis to what they see as the problems with the economy whether you're talking about America or some other first world developed economy like Canada or in Europe, but they also have bad solutions to what they see as problems with the economy. Whether you're talking about Bernie Sanders in America or U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.