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

Friday, September 23, 2016

Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Source: Laura Flanders-
Source: Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Is a socialist future possible? Well I guess anything is possible at least in the future. I don't think this is the right question, because it's sort of like asking will we one day see cars that fly for people who don't want to sit in traffic on the way to work. I guess that is possible, but who is expecting that. We need to separate the possible and the reasonable and realistic, because they're different things. The next President of the United States, won't be a Socialist or Social Democrat. (Sorry Jill Stein supporters) The next President will either a moderate pragmatic Progressive (which is what Progressives are) in Hillary Clinton, or a right-wing authoritarian fascist in Donald Trump. Whoever controls the next Congress, the Speaker of the House won't be a Socialist, even if it is Nancy Pelosi and the Speaker's members won't be social-democratic, at least the majority. Once you get past the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus. The next Leader of the Senate, won't be a Socialist or Social-Democrat, even if it is Chuck Schumer. And his members won't be social-democratic by nature. Once you get beyond Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin. So Socialists and Social-Democrats, won't control the next Congress in either chamber.

People point to the Millennial Generation as reason to believe we're moving in a socialist or social-democratic direction as a country as far as ideology. But go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s and yes George McGovern did win the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. But most of his support came from young Baby Boomers in their twenties. And look at the Baby Boom Generation today and you see a generation (with all due respect) that grew up. They got jobs (once they started showering and got hair cuts) and started paying taxes. They go involved romantically outside of their radical political movement and got married and had kids. They got comfortable in American society and became very successful in life and perhaps also learned about the limits of socialism and what government can do for people with their taxes. And didn't become Conservatives necessarily, but certainly moderated and became what Hillary Clinton is today. And took more of a pragmatic center-left approach to what government should and can do for the people.

Again to go back to my original point about what is possible, twenties years from now can we see an America that is a social-democratic country that looks like Canada or Scandinavia when it comes to economic and foreign policy, again what isn't possible until it's proven impossible. But I'm more interested in what's reasonable and realistic. I guess I'm just not very romantic and if the Millennial's are anything like the Boomers or even Gen-Xers and a lot of Millennial's are the sons and daughters of Boomers and Gen-Xers, they'll moderate as well. Some might even move to the Center-Right. We don't know where we'll be as a country even four years from now politically. A lot of that will depend on how the first term of the next president goes. But to say that a large percentage of the young adult generation (Millennial's) like socialism and  based on that America is moving in a socialist direction, I would ask you 5-10 years from now if you still believe that. If the Baby Boomers were Socialists, than Ronald Reagan probably never becomes President. So just I believe it's way to early to decide what direction America is moving in politically until we actually get there.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Reason: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Kristin Tate- The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild

Source: Reason-Kristin Tate-
Source:  Reason: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Kristin Tate- The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild

I know I'm going to over-generalize here and I'm not a Libertarian, but it's good to hear a Millennial who is not a Socialist . Who doesn't think speech they disagree with should be censored. Who doesn't believe there's a government program to solve everyone's problems for them. Who doesn't believe government services are free. Who doesn't believe government should protect people from themselves either from an economic or personal standpoint. Not saying all Millennial's are Socialists. Not over-generalizing that much, but the Bernie Sanders movement are Millennial's and New-Left Socialists from the 1960s who still believe the Fidel Castro Marxist Revolution is still alive and well in Cuba. The 1-2% of the Jill Stein Green Party movement, is the same movement as the Bernie Sanders movement. The difference believing that Senator Sanders isn't as partisan as Dr. Stein and doesn't see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the same. "So what's the point of voting for either?"

Millennial's are a diverse revolution politically. You have a democratic socialist wing, you have what I at least would call a classically-liberal wing. People who are very liberal and anti-big government on social issues and believe in a lot of personal freedom as far as allowing people to make their own decisions. Who don't want big government taking care of them financially either, but don't want the safety net for people who truly need it to disappear. And that is the Gary Johnson base right there and he has Millennial support. He's says he's someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. And then you have the Ron Paul libertarian wing that Kristin Tate represents. People who have very little if any role for government at all. Who are way to the right of Gary Johnson on economic and fiscal policy. And then you have the non-political wing of the Millennial Generation. Who are too busy staking out Apple Stores so they're the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone. And are too busy with new technology and celebrity culture, to follow politics at all.

Millennial's aren't Socialists, they aren't Liberals, they aren't Centrists and they aren't Libertarians. This is a generation that's still finding they're way politically. I mean the oldest Millennial right now is 36 years old. We didn't know how to label the Baby Boom Generation at least until the 1980s when they started entering their forties. They started off as part of the New-Left radical socialist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Then they finally grew up, started taking showers, discovered barber shops, got their hair cut, got jobs, got married, had kids and moderated their political views at least to the point they were no longer bombing schools and banks, because they thought capitalism was unfair and racist. Which is what I hope happens with the Millennial Generation. That they grow up as well as a generation and discover that part of living in a liberal democracy (and yes liberal democracy) is from time to time hearing political viewpoints that they disagree with and even find insulting.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Source: Phyllis Schlafly-
Source: Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

"The question for Republicans at their 1964 National Convention was: At this crucial point in American history, will we send in our bat boy? Or will we send in our Babe Ruth — a man who is not afraid or forbidden to take a good cut at all major issues of the day? [p.28]

He is the one Republican who will not pull his punches to please the kingmakers. He can be counted on to face the issues squarely. He will make the kind of forthright hard-hitting campaign that American voters admire. This is why he is the man the left-leaning liberals most fear. He is the only Republican who will truly offer the voters "a choice, not an echo". [p80-81]

Behind the scenes, the kingmakers prepared the publicity buildup of several candidates to replace Barry Goldwater. How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:

1. A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.

2. Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.

3. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs.

4. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.

5. Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic. [p.88]

Meanwhile the kingmakers engaged in a frantic search to dig up anybody — just anybody — to prevent Republicans from selecting their obvious candidate. [p.89]

Even after he was dropped by the kingmakers, Romney was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing

rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: "I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice." [p.89-90]

As it turned out, no Republican could have won the Presidency in 1964, but Goldwater inspired conservative Republicans for many years later."

In 1964 pre-Barry Goldwater's win essentially taking over the Republican Party, his conservative-libertarian wing, the Republican Party was very similar to what the Reform Party looks like today. A fiscally and economically conservative party, that worried about debt and deficits, high taxes, centralized big government, over regulation of the economy and taking power away from the states to give it to the Federal Government. As well as believing in strong national defense and being strong anti-Communist Cold Warriors. It was the party that Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, put together in the 1940s and 1950s. It was also a party that believed in the safety net for people who really needed it and supported things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, and other public assistance programs. Just as long as they were paid for and people who could were expected to work. They were somewhat moderately-conservative on safety net issues. They didn't believe government had no role, but that government shouldn't try to do everything for everybody.

What Conservative-Libertarian Republican Senator Barry Goldwater argued in his 1961 book Conscience of a Conservative, was that America needed another vision. Something to counter the progressive New Deal of the 1940s and that government was becoming too big and taxing too much and we needed a new political philosophy to counter the New Deal Progressives. Conscience of a Conservative lays out that conservative vision for America. Phyllis Schlafly, agreed with Barry Goldwater that America did need a right-wing alternative vision to progressivism. But her politics was a bit different. Barry Golwater, was a anti-big government Conservative across the board. He didn't want big government in our economic or personal affairs and not trying to tell individuals how they should live their own lives. As long as being a strong defense anti-Communist Cold Warrior.  Phyllis Schlafly, was with Goldwater on the economic and foreign policy issues, but they separated when it came to social and cultural issues.

When I look at Phyllis Schlafly's politics today, I see Ron Paul plus Pat Buchanan. Someone who was anti-big government and even anti-safety net when it came to economic policy. But believed in standards and limits to what government should allow people to do in their personal lives. Not just anti-abortion, but anti-homosexuality, anti-gay marriage, they believed women working was not good for the American family and that government shouldn't encourage women to work. They believed pornography should be outlawed across the board. They were anti-immigration and multiculturalism. That America should be governed based on their Christian religious and cultural beliefs. Phyllis Schlafly, to me at least is responsible for launching the Christian-Right and even the Alt-Right today. And Alt-Right radio and commentary from people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Phyllis Schlafly, is responsible for launching a major political movement in America and one of our most powerful and influential political activists. And deserves some credit for that.
The Dove TV: Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Sharon Kauffman: ABC News's 20/20 First Episode- 6/06/1978

From ABC News-
As the lead in to this video said ABC News, was a small player if not joke in the network news business in the 1970s. They basically remained that way until the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979-80 that launched Nightline with Ted Koppel and their nightly newscast World News Tonight started drawing real ratings then, This Week With David Brinkley emerged in 1981, 20/20 became a hit when Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of it. ABC Sports with their NFL coverage with Monday Night Football and their MLB coverage with Monday Night Baseball and their college football coverage and a handful of entertainment shows that they had especially in daytime, were really the only hits that the ABC network had. Back then America had two great broadcast networks in CBS and NBC, as far as entertainment, sports and news. With ABC giving you same type of programming, but without the hits and affiliates that the big two had in the 1970s. And being a distant third to CBS and NBC when it came to news, but entertainment as well.

I sort of look at ABC in the 1970s the way I look at Fox today, but with ABC putting a lot more emphasis on news. Fox still doesn't have much if any impact on network news other than their Sunday morning talk show. ABC was trying to be CBS and NBC at least as far as influence and in size, but until Roone Arledge took over ABC Sports in the 1970s and then later ABC News in the 1980s, they were a distant third. Rooney Arledge with Monday Night Football and then Monday Night Baseball and ABC Sports college football, 20/20 World News Tonight, Nightline, This Week With David Brinkley, is responsible for making ABC the powerhouse it is today. With the ability to compete with CBS and NBC, when it comes to entertainment, news and sports. And have the affiliates to be able to do that. Whatever you think of this version of 20/20 and I'll get to that later, this was the start of ABC becoming a force in network news.

It's a damn good thing that Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of 20/20. Even for 1978 the layout of this first show with two no-name anchors and one of them not even being an American and the other making his living as a writer and not a broadcast journalist and the cheesy music (even for 1978) and covering stories like how greyhounds are treated, just showed you that ABC News wasn't quite ready for prime-time. CBS's 60 Minutes even though they had already been around for ten years at this point, looked so much better and more professional. It looked like a network news magazine show. And not some weekend morning show that mixes in soft stories with a few real news stories and interviews, to make the show look serious. But they were trying and got much better again when Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters, took over the show in 1979-80. And were together for twenty years and made 20/20 the hit that it still is today.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Lock Carge: Real Time With Bill Maher- Christopher Hitchens in 2010

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The way I look at Catholics and Christians in general when it comes to terrorists and other bad apples like child molesters, is the way I look at Muslims in this sense. There are roughly two-billion Muslims in the world, maybe a hundred-thousand of them are terrorists. You could do a lot with a military of a hundred-thousand especially if you're a mid-size country. But out of two-billon people that is not much of an army when it comes to percentages. The overwhelmingly majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people. Who may have far-right cultural views, but not to the point they're willing to kill themselves and others to express those views. I'm not Catholic, even though a lot of Germans American and otherwise are Catholic or Lutheran, but most Catholics are good moral people. The sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in the early and mid two-thousands, was a horrible scandal with a lot of people hurt badly. But if that scandal represented Catholicism in general, we would see a lot more people come forward and share their abuse stories at the hands of Catholic priests and other Catholic leaders. Chris Hitchens and to a certain extent Bill Maher, are guilty of over-generalizing here.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

World Opinion Forum-CBS News: President Richard Nixon's Resignation Speech- Dan Rather vs Roger Mudd

CBS News Correspondent Roger Mudd-
CBS News covering President Richard Nixon's resignation speech in August, 1974. (I wasn't born yet!) Of course because of President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break in in 1972 where employees of the Richard Nixon Reelection Campaign, broke into Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington in the summer of 1972. After it became clear because of President Nixon's presidential tapes that the President ordered the coverup. he lost most of whatever support he had left in Congress. At least enough in the House and even in his own party to prevent him from being impeached by the House with a bipartisan majority and win a conviction trial in the Senate. The President would have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. That is how Congress can remove the President and Vice President from office. Congressional Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater, but Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, told President Nixon that the gig was up, so to speak. Went to the White House and told the President he can't survive Watergate and if he tries to he'll be removed from off by Congress.

That is why President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Because had he not he would have faced a worst embarressment of being removed from office by Congress and perhaps losing half of his own party in the House and Senate on those votes. Senate Republicans told President Nixon that he might have twenty votes for acquittal in the Senate if it went that far. You need 34 to defeat impeachment in the Senate and Republicans had 45 seats in the Senate in that Congress. More than enough to defeat an impeachment trial if they're united on it. President Nixon had calculated that he would probably get impeached by the Democratic House that had roughly 260 seats, but the win the conviction trial in the Senate. But Senator Goldwater told the President that he didn't have enough votes in the Senate for that and that he Barry Goldwater would vote for conviction.  Perhaps Richard Nixon did want to end this and save the country from seeng their President impeached and convicted. But it's clear that a big part of him resigning was to save himself from further embarrassment.

This Democratic Congress of 1973-74, was ready to get past impeachment and deal with other issues. Like making sure the Vietnam War ended swiftly and properly, the country was going through a recession and lacked affordable energy, inflation was becoming a big problem, rising unemployment, etc. But just as long as President Nixon was removed one way or another from office. Whether they had to do that themselves or the President voluntarily stepped down. So as Roger Mudd and Dan Rather were talking about as far as whether the House would go through on impeachment anyway even with the President resigning, there was no appetite for that in either the Democratic Caucus or Republican Caucus. And the Democratic Senate wanted nothing to do with an impeachment trial and neither did Senate Republicans, especially if the President already decided to voluntarily resign. Richard Nixon being the master politician he was, knew when to fold and when he lost all support which is why he resigned from office.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Rob Atsea: NBC News Update With Jessica Savitch- Easter 1979

Source: Rob Atsea- NBC News Anchor Jessica Savitch-
Source: Rob Atsea: NBC News Update With Jessica Savitch- Easter 1979

Jessica Savitch, was NBC Nightly News's weekend anchor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before she tragically died in I believe 1983. She was like 36 at that point and well on her way to becoming a lead network news anchor, or perhaps having another network news show. She had great presence, she knew what she was talking about, had great delivery and a great voice. And yes like Diane Sawyer, she was gorgeous and very cute and easy to look at and listen to.

Easter 1979, an important time. There was a Polish Pope in John Paul, who is a hero of the Christian-Right in America on social issues. But also a hero with Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to human rights. And was a major inspiration for the way falling in Eastern Europe with Slavic bloc there.

Iran was under a new regime and government and a huge energy producer that America relied on still at that point. But was becoming less predictable and stable just when America was going through an energy and economic crisis. Which just made 1979 an even more chaotic year with the bad economy and lack of affordable energy in the country.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Harley Davidson: Jennifer Martin- The Motorcycle Experience: Choosing the Best Riding Boots

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

One of the reasons why I love biker culture, especially biker women in biker culture is the style. Tight denim and leather jeans with boots, very common with biker women, as well as biker men. And they biker boots with those outfits which goes as well as french fries with cheeseburgers or vanilla ice cream with apple pie. It's just the perfect combination and perfect outfit. And that biker women tend to be very attractive and feminine and stay in great shape simply because they need to for the lifestyle they live and being able to hand a big bike and being on the road, but also because they care about their physical appearance and need to look good to fit into that culture. And also because leather and denim, just make a great combination. Leather jackets, go great with denim jeans and boots go great with both denim and leather jeans. Boots are the perfect compliment for jeans denim or leather. Looking at Jennifer Martin, a beautiful biker women obviously, just makes my case for how well boots go with jeans and in this case denim jeans. And how great biker women look.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

NBC News: John F. Kennedy on Meet The Press Through The Years

John Kennedy, was perfect for NBC's Meet The Press, because he was so quick. The people there liked him and knew that he could not only answer their questions, but wanted to do it and answer them with depth. Very similar to Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, he was very quick off the cuff and could answer questions with humor. Meet The Press liked interviewing him, because he was likable, popular, well-known and very funny. The 1950s was a fascinating time and JFK was in Congress the whole time as the country was dealing with the Cold War, post World War II economic boom, the early days of the civil rights movement and even American women starting to make important impacts out of the home in the American economy. Meet The Press had female anchors and questioners. There were women in Congress like Senator Margaret Chase Smith and many others. Jack Kennedy was in his thirties and early forties during this decade and had a great future ahead of him if he wanted it. Which is why Meet The Press loved having him on.

Jack Kennedy, was sort of an absentee Representative in the House. Somewhat bored and loved being a bachelor and enjoying the Washington nightlife when Congress was in session. It wasn't until JFK decided to run for the Senate in 1952 that he started taking his job more serious and making his positions known in Congress. There are a lot of things to love about Jack Kennedy and he is my political hero, but he's definitely someone who grew in office. Wasn't a great Representative, but a good Senator at least in the sense that he started taking issues seriously and studying them and not just going to his committee hearings, but knowing the right questions to ask. I don't believe JFK becomes President of the United States on his personal appeal and family name alone in 1960, had he not become a serious Senator and taken his job in Congress seriously and getting on the road and getting his political platform out there.

I'm not sure JFK gets into his politics without his father Joe pushing him. But it's clear that once JFK got into politics and ran for the House in 1946 and was elected he loved it and became a natural campaigner and politician. He gave a great speech, great interviews, knew how to excite and inspirer people. He wasn't a natural public servant and someone who actually loved doing the job that he was elected to do. He tenure in the House is a pretty good example of that. I believe he sort of grew in public service once he was elected to the Senate, especially his second term when he started considered running for president in 1957 or so. But was someone even though had a fairly thin resume outside of Congress and somewhat of a thin voting record and list of accomplishments in Congress, was someone who was great at expiring people and laying out a vision for how America could be even greater and how all Americans could succeed in America.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Britcoin Faucets: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher-Discussing 9/11 in 2001

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 after the Clinton national security team warned the Bush Administration about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden before the Bush team came into office, is like blaming the Pittsburgh Steelers for the lack of success that the Cleveland Browns have had in the last twenty years. "Hey, if only the Steelers hadn't been so good and beat us over and over, maybe the we the Browns wouldn't have had lost so much. It's all Pittsburgh's fault for our lack of success." The Clinton Administration went after Osama Bin Laden, at least since 1996 when Al-Qaeda attacked one of our ships in the Middle East. America was at peace when the Clinton Administration came into power in 1993 and we were still at peace when they left office in January, 2001. The economy was still booming and the Bush's inherited a budget surplus of two-hundred-billion-dollars and twenty-three-million net jobs.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was focused on trying to jump start the economy was starting to slow and worrying about what to do with the record budget surplus they just inherited and thinking they could be allies with Vladimir Putin's Russia and education reform. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, wasn't a huge priority for them. It wasn't until 9/11 that they became neoconservative defense hawks, thinking that our civil liberties and constitutional rights, might be threatening our national security. And coming up with indefinite detention without arrest, the Patriot Act, that spies on who Americans associate with and what we read even. Where we could become potential suspects and even detained, for what we might read or who we might know. The Bush Administration, didn't have much of a national security or foreign policy, pre-911. The so-called War on Terror, wasn't part of our national language yet.

Did Bill Clinton eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as President, of course not. But to say they weren't paying attention to him and not trying to do that when they actually tried to assassinate him both in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, is nonsense. George W. Bush and company, obviously didn't eliminate Osama and Al-Qaeda as well. But President Barack Obama, had Osama assassinated in his third year in office in 2011. And the Obama Administration has come damn close to eliminating Al-Qaeda the last eight years. And have destroyed a lot of ISIS in Syria and Iraq in the last two years. George W. Bush, obviously didn't create Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda either, but they got off to a late start to the threat of that organization. Especially since the previous administration were already going after them. And that the Clinton national security team warned the incoming Bush Administration about the threat in late 2000. According to Clinton counter-terrorism director Richard Clark.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

The Objective Standard: Dr. Martin Luther King on Government and The Individual

The Objective Standard: Dr. Martin Luther King on Government and The Individual

Politically Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a Democratic Socialist and proud of it. At least when it came to economic policy and foreign policy. He was a democratic collectivist in the sense he believed that the job of government especially the central government, was to see that everyone was taken care of and no one had to go without. And believed in the democratic socialist model of the welfare state that is common in Scandinavia, where the job of the central government is to seen that a lot of the people's needs are met by the government. Education, health insurance, health care, child care, very generous benefits for the working poor and non-working poor, etc. But he also had what's called a classical liberal streak (that I call a real liberal streak) where all Americans are entitled to basic individual and equal rights. This quote in this photo is a perfect example of that. Where he's saying that, "man is not made for the state, but the state is made for the man.

Individuals, don't get their power from government, but vice-versa. All of our elected officials are exactly that. They have to run in order to serve us and be given the power and responsibility that we the people give them. The people aren't required to serve the government and serve the politicians, other than obeying the law and cooperating with law enforcement. We don't have all of these individuals rights under the Bill of Rights, because the current party in power at any given time says we do. Those individuals rights are constitutional and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. And it's the job to make our rights are protected. Not to pick and choose who has them and who doesn't. Which is one reason why I'm such a big believer in civil liberties and freedom of choice and so opposed to political correctness. Dr. King here is speaking for We The People in an individualist way. Saying that we as Americans have basic individuals rights that don't come from government.

Something that I disagree with Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists on, is the relationship between government and society and government and the people. The socialist-left, tend to combine those groupings into one group. When they say society has done this and provided the people with these things or this country does this for it's people, they mean the government does these things for the people. When in fact government is the people that are supposed to work for the people and in many cases are elected. Society, is the people and in many cases the people are responsible for job creation, providing health care, education and so-forth and in many cases that is not done by government at all, not even through the financing. But that these services are provided by the private sector, the people who work for private organizations and business's. When Dr. King was talking about We The People here, he was talking about the basic individuals of the people. Not government and saying that government gets all of their power from the people they're supposed to serve.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Remember This-C-SPAN's BookNotes With Brain Lamb: David Brinkley- From The New Deal to The Contract With America, From 1995


You could say that David Brinkley saw it all in his life at least as a broadcast journalist and anchor. He had the first and big nightly national newscast the Huntley Brinkley Report, with Chet Huntley from NBC News. During that period there was the Korean War, the start of the Cold War, General Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, the early days of the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement in the 1960s, our first Irish-Catholic President of the United States in John F. Kennedy, the 1960s, the 1970s, Watergate, etc, all as either anchor of the Huntley Brinkley Report, or co-anchor of NBC Nightly News. David Brinkley, had a long and great career as either anchor of the NBC News nightly newscast, or as anchor of the ABC News Sunday morning news program This Week. He was the first stars of ABC News when they finally merged as a major player in the network news business in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David Brinkley had an ability as a good interviewer and commentator. Like Howard Smith at ABC News, he was very good at delivering the news and analyzing it as well. Explaining what the news meant and the JFK assassination in how how he described how the country was feeling and how horrible that tragedy was in 1963, is a perfect example of that. His commentaries about Watergate in the early 1970s, is another example of that. He was very witty as well when he would get a silly story to cover and talk about on his show. He was almost like a great debate moderator on This Week between Conservative George Will and Progressive ABC News White House corespondent Sam Donaldson. The debates they had on that show made This Week worth watching by itself, along with the people they interviewed. And of course he had that great voice and gentlemen demeanor that made him perfect for news programs, because the people there didn't think he was trying to attack them.

The Huntley Brinkley Report, was a two-man nightly newscast with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. CBS News had Walter Cronkite, who was simply the best at what he did and still is and anchored the CBS Evening News. NBC News had two excellent news anchors and men who worked very well together in Brinkley and Huntley and paired them together. Which worked for a while up until the late 60s or so when the CBS Evening News, became the top not just newscast, but perhaps news show in the country up until the 1980s. David Brinkley, arguably is the first of the great broadcast news anchors and someone who was at the top or near top for almost fifty-years at both NBC News and later ABC News. And is one of the best broadcast journalists we've ever produced, because of his ability to interview, deliver the news, add with when appropriate and could explain the news in a commonsense way that made him very popular.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Associated Press: Today in History For September 11th- Remembering 9/11, 2001

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Just to give you a personal reflection about 9/11. I was working at a movie theater and not happy about it and working the nightshift and disliked that even more. Except for the people I worked with and for and met. I believe I closed the night before and slept in that morning knowing I would be closing again on that Tuesday night the night of 9/11. I woke up early that afternoon and turned on the news and saw I believe ABC News breaking in from their afternoon soap operas to cover these explosions that were happening in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. And to paraphrase what Jack Buck said during the 1988 World Series, "I don't believe what my eyes just saw." I can't believe what I just saw on TV. It must have felt like the way people in Hawaii felt during Pearl Harbor in 1941. That the nation was under attack and what's the next horrible attack that we'll be doing with. I get ready for work and get there I guess about 4 o'clock that afternoon and find out that the theater is close because of the attacks and I had the night off.

There are only two moments during the George W. Bush presidency where I was proud of President Bush and I don't say that lightly or proudly. It's just the way I feel about this President as President. The first one is where President Bush goes to New York City to look at the destruction caused by the attacks and he's giving a speech there and talking to firefighters there. And some people in the audience yell out essentially how angry they are at the people of these attacks. And President Bush literally breaks in with a megaphone and says, "we hear you, the Americans people hear you and the people responsible for knocking down these buildings will hear from all of us very shortly." It was the perfect thing to be said at that point and I believe reflected how most Americans were feeling at that very moment regardless of their politics and party affiliation. Those last four months of 2001 starting unfortunately with 9/11, you could argue was the last time America was united as a country. And President Bush deserves credit for that. Regardless of what you think of him.

I don't live in New York City and I never had. So I can't give you an eyewitness account of what happened in New York during those horrific attacks. But what I can do as an American is tell you how I feel about people responsible for attacking one of America's great cities and one of the great cities in the world. America felt under attack during 9/11. Before that we felt invincible as a country and believe no one would attack us period. Even if they could, because we would destroy them if they did and they knew that. 9/11 changed and changed the national makeup of this country. What goes on in the Middle East and South Asia, can now happen here. Not from another country sending in a plane and hitting us with missiles and bombs, because they would get shot down. But from terrorist hijackers so warped out of their mind and hating America and our foreign policy, that they would hijack a private plane and use it as their suicide attack. Even with innocent passengers on board simply flying to New York, with no say in the matter. And America has never gotten back to pre-9/11 and the few months after that when we were one country even for that short period.


Saturday, September 10, 2016

John Paul: Cues For Conservatives- The New-Left in The Democratic Party

John Paul's Conservative Buzz

From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives

"Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7:

The tragedy is that most of the people who call themselves Democrats today don’t have a clue about what their party actually stands for, the far Left ideology it promotes, and the regressive radical policies they support.  They have been effectively “duped” by the unscrupulous Democrat Party machine and media apparatus as Alinksy’s “Useful Idiots” to keep the Democrats ruling the people in perpetual power. Many believe that they are loyal Americans who stand with their party ideologically, without taking the time to study the facts and get the information they need to be informed citizens and voters. The Democrat Party of 50 years ago, that so many cling to, is long, long gone. The JFK Democrats of the early 1960’s, while still left-leaning, at least did NOT support the shredding of the Constitution, generations of dependency on government hand-outs, massive entitlement programs, identity politics and social division, socialism, or the far-Left Marxist ideology of the Democrat Party today. Nor were they Alinsky-inspired radical regressives, leveraging Alinsky’s unsavory and unethical rules of engagement to maintain political power at all costs (where as discussed in Chapter 1, the ends for these radicals always justifies the means, where ethics and morals simply have no place).

In a November 21, 2015 article written by Josh Kraushaar in the National Journal, he writes that Democrats have an identity-politics problem and have become a party defined by identity. He states, “…the main reas­on why Clin­ton is a near-lock for the nom­in­a­tion is that Demo­crats have be­come the party of iden­tity. They’re now de­pend­ent on a co­ali­tion that re­lies on ex­cit­ing less-re­li­able voters with non­tra­di­tion­al can­did­ates.”[1]  Identity politics is extremely divisive and damaging to our political discourse in America, and while it attracts certain special interests and ethnic groups to the Democrats, it pushes away people who don’t support this new dark era in politics. It has the goal of effectively ganging up a range of demographics in the US to unite against the white Christian conservative, the most reviled of all groups in the illiberal lexicon.  Their ultimate goal is to take the property, rights and political power away from the “haves” in favor of redistribution to certain special interests, in order to pursue their socialist utopian agenda.  Of course, it is all in line with the Alinsky rules of engagement, where such divisions serve to “rub the sores of discontent” to help achieve their illiberal agenda for “fundamental change”. The racial and social division in America is becoming as bad as it ever was as a result. Doubtless few self-described Democrats – Millennials and others – understand or appreciate this fact when they decide to support this party."

Had John Paul said that a faction of the Democratic Party believed in the New-Left Saul Alinsky socialist if not Neo-Communist way of doing things, I probably would agree with him. But the Democratic Party is still the largest party in America. And you don't have that title by simply appealing to the Far-Left. The Democratic Party similar to the Republican Party, is essentially three parties into one. That is what you get with a two-party system in a country has huge and politically diverse as we are.

You get a Democratic Party that has a liberal New Democrat wing that I'm from. That Jack Kennedy created and Bill Clinton brought back to life in the 1990s, that Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart and Mike Dukakis, tried to bring back in the 1970s and 1980s. You have what I at least believe is the true progressive wing of the party that sounds somewhat moderate compared with Liberals on social issues and Social Democrats on economic policy. People who believe that government can be used to help people who are struggling, but along with Liberals, believe that government should be used to help people help themselves. But also believe in fiscal responsibility and that government can't do everything for everybody and that unlike Dick Cheney (ha, ha) deficits and debt matters. And these progressive policies need to be part of a budget that reflects the national priorities. But these things need to be paid for and you have prioritize. And there's a limit to what you can tax people without hurting the economy. To get back to my point about there's a limit and even financial limit to what government can do for people. Progressives, also tend to be pro-free trade and somewhat hawkish on foreign affairs. Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I believe are perfect examples of a Progressives.

And then you have what I at least believe is the scary wing of the Democratic Party. People who don't simply fit into mainstream American politics. And perhaps even mainstream society. You could call it the Saul Alinsky Wing, or go back back twenty years from the mid and late 1960s and you could call it the Henry Wallace wing. One of the first self-described Democratic Socialists who ever ran for President of the United States. People who believe that the central government has a program to fix everyone's problems for them. That economic freedom and individual success and even individualism, should not only not be celebrated , but are bad things, because it means some people will end up doing very well, while others struggle. That government should not only be big, but centralized to provide the services that people need to live well. Who aren't even that liberal on social issues either. Not fans of free speech if it offends people they claim to care about. Pro-choice on reproduction rights and sexuality, sure but not much else. Whether it's speech, what people should be able to eat and drink, how we spend our money, they all believe these decisions should be for The Collective to decide for everyone else.

But to get back to my friend John Paul's point about the Democratic Party. If the New-Left McGovernites, ran the Democratic Party, if the Democratic Party was a a McGovernite Party, the party that George McGovern created in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jimmy Carter doesn't become president in 1976. The party doesn't nominate Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mike Dukakis in 1988. Bill Clinton doesn't become president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Al Gore, doesn't win the Democratic nomination in 2000. Neither does John Kerry in 2004. As far as Barack Obama in 2008, he ran essentially as a McGovermite in the Democratic primaries, which is why I didn't vote for him in the Maryland primary. But then he moved to the center and Center-Left in the general election and has governed as a Center-Left Progressives as president. If the New-Left ran the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, who is to the left of even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and as far-left as Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, wins the Democratic presidential nomination in both 2004 and 2008. Jesse Jackson, would have won the nomination in 1984 and 88.

We're a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. Try to get your mind around that number for a minute. We're a huge country in-between two of the largest oceans in the world. In between two of the largest countries in the world at least in land, in Canada and Mexico. Anytime you have a country this huge and this free with all of our guaranteed individual rights, unlike lets say Saudi Arabia, with guaranteed free speech and assembly and now with our New Technology Revolution and social media wave, you're going to get a very diverse country politically, racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally and everything else. Which is why I believe the two-party system in a country that represents the entire political spectrum is now obsolete. America is not a social-democratic country, if we were we would have had a social-democratic president post-Franklin Roosevelt. If the Democratic Party was a New-Left McGovernite socialist party, it wouldn't be anywhere nearly as big as it's today. Some 45-50 million members and instead the Green Party would probably be as twice as it as it's today and who knows what the Center-Left party would be. Maybe I and others would've created something else.






Friday, September 9, 2016

Lisa Rinna: Marilyn Monroe- Things Happen For a Reason

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I've blogged this before and I'll say this again. Marilyn Monroe, wasn't known for saying intelligent things, at least not with people not knowing her personally. She was known as a goddess, dumb blonde, an entertainer, comedian, singer, a wild child with the baby-face of a sixteen year girl and even the personality of one. And except for the dumb blonde she was all of those things. But she was so much more and even those she was immature and lack self-discipline and self-confidence, which is shocking if you just look at her and see that smile, she had this keen blunt way of seeing things for what they are and knowing exactly how to describe them and put things and people in their place. She had a keen sense for commonsense about life outside of her. Even if she didn't show much of it when living her own life. What's she saying here in this quote is not something that makes people think, "I wish I thought of that." Instead it's more like, "I wish I remembered that, so I could see things what they were and take life as it comes and make the best of it."

Things to happen for a reason. Which sounds like a quote from Captain Obvious, but it's so true and if more people just saw that instead of thinking their life is collapsing because they're facing some hardship. It's not whether something for good or bad happens in your life that is key. The question is how does that change you and what do you do about it. Being poor at any point in your life is only a life sentence if you make it one for yourself. You don't improve yourself, you don't get yourself the skills that you need to live your life, you don't make the necessary lifestyle adjustments needed to be able to move up in life and you'll remain poor. Instead of saying, "I hate poverty, so I'm going to do what it takes to get myself out of poverty." And that is just one example and when something positive happens in your life, you should know why and how that happened, so you don't take it for granted and stay on that positive course. Whether you get a promotion at work, get a great girlfriend, whatever it might be.

One way I would describe Marilyn Monroe, is that she has a Ronald Reagan knack of commonsense. (Sorry my fellow Democrats) The Gipper had an ability to put things as they are and put them in a way that anyone basically could understand. That is how someone wins presidential elections with 56 and 59 percent of the vote and wins 93 states in two elections. Because you show strong leadership and layout a vision and character that everyone can understand. Even if they vote for you or not. Marilyn Monroe, was fifteen-years younger than Ron Reagan and politically very different, but she had that same ability of putting things in a way that everyone can understand. And not introduce knew language and facts, but instead remind people of commonsense that almost everyone knows. That perhaps we forgot, because it's so common and perhaps seems so ordinary and perhaps old school and we feel the need to simply be different and fit in with current times. Marilyn was great at putting things exactly as they are and for that reason alone is worth being missed.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Canadian-C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens and Patrick Buchanan, on Bill Clinton in 1993

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show. Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what's called today an Alt-Rightist. Someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis's and civil wars. And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes. Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren't two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on an certain issue.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

John Luton: Joan Collins on The Jonathan Ross Show- Nov 2015

The Real Thing-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe why Americans love soap operas and tabloids so much and now reality TV, is because of women like Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Ava Gardner and I'm sure many others. But these three women come to my mind real fast. Because they lived and worked like divas and women who were simply more interesting than everyone else. For good and bad and a lot of that good, because Joan Collins is simply one of the cutest, funniest and best actress's of her generation. Who went toe-to-toe with Johnny Carson when he interviewed her on The Tonight Show. Great interview if you've seen that from back in 1983. Joan Collins is simply just a beautiful, fascinating, entertaining, funny and adorable women, who is never boring and always entertaining. The life of the party and interview, life of the show. Someone who was born to be in the public eye who is always off-script, because she is quick and honest and doesn't need a script to be serious or funny, because she's so honest and you always know where she's coming from. We need more people like her for good and bad and I wish we had people like that. And perhaps so-called reality TV would disappear and we would get the real thing instead with Joan Collins and others always showing letting us know exactly where they're coming from.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Foundation For Economic Freedom: TJ Brown- Dear Regressives: Crackdown is Not an Effective Way to Deal With Dissent

Far-Left Fascism!
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

"Aw! Shut up, you're hurting my feelings! I can't hear you, because I'm not listening. I can't hear you, so you better shut up."

Remember back in elementary school when you would be confronted by someone you wish didn't even exist and didn't even want contact with and there aren't any school officials around and they got in your face and you didn't know how to deal with them effectively without looking like a bigger wimp or geek. Well, neither do I (for the most part) but I went to school with kids like that who would be called bullies today. So-called cool kids who felt the need to make the unpopular feel even worst than they already did. And some kids would sing that little song that I just quoted and even cover their ears. That's what Richard Dawkins and other on the Left, Center-Left call the regressive-left. Leftists who don't believe in liberal values like free speech, free choice, individualism, the ability for people to be able to think for themselves and live as people. And not as members of groups.

The regressive illiberal-left in America, that have more in common with Democratic Socialists and even Communists, far-left collectivists, who feel so superior over everyone else that they believe they and government should have the power to make up other people's minds for them. I mean what the hell are you doing in college if you don't want to hear opposing views and other points of view that are designed simply to make people think. Well maybe you're there just to play sports. But for the non-athlete at college what are they doing there if they don't want to hear what others think and debate the key issues of the day that they're going to have to deal with post-college. The way you deal with dissent or opposing views is to debate them and try to show people why they're wrong in a respectful way, or ignore them and move on with your life. But to simply try to use the heavy-hand of big government or whatever institution you're associated with, to shut up the opposition, is an obvious case of fascism.

College is all about free speech and freedom of protest. And when you say you are your political allies have the right to protest and free speech, but the opposition doesn't, you're believing in fascism. Whether you come from the Far-Left or Far-Right. You're saying you have so much confidence in yourself and what you believe, that there is not just any need of opposition, but the only thing that opposition would do is threaten your position that is so fabulous (on your Planet Pluto) and people who disagree with you are simply bigots anyway (according to the New-Left) and don't have any free speech rights anyway. And free speech doesn't exist in the first place anyway, (again in your small world) it's collective speech that should be the goal instead. What the collective or Board of Experts believe is the right way for people to speak to each other. That is not free speech, not individualism and not liberalism, but an illiberal form of political correctness. That shouldn't exist in a liberal democracy.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Alan Eichler: Lana Turner-Joan Rivers, 1982 TV Interview

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

This is a classic interview, because of who the pair is and and the lives that they lived. Whatever you think of Lana Turner and I'm fan of her's and whatever you think of Joan Rivers and I she is one of the funniest women I know of, you always knew where they both came from, because they were both very honest about themselves. You look at the movie Love Has Many Faces, (RIP Hugh O'Brian) and then watch this interview and Lana's hair is the same in both appearances. Same color and hair style and her hair looks great in both appearances. Lana Turner, is a true Hollywood Goddess, because she's stood the test of time. Didn't become popular because of some appearance on a reality show and gets a movie or something from that, bombs out and is never heard of. Or spends most of her time in and out of rehab clinics. Lana, became a star early and remained that way well into her sixties if not older. She's one of the best dramatic as well as dramatic comedic actress's of all-time, similar to Lauren Bacall and is still missed today.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Constitution Daily: Olivia Fitzpatrick- Vice Presidential Profile Henry Wallace: The Father of American Democratic Socialism

Democratic Socialist Vice President Henry Wallace-
Constitution Daily: Olivia Fitzpatrick- Vice Presidential Profile Henry Wallace

Henry Wallace, is a very important figure in American politics as well as government and I believe in positive ways for the most part. He was in favor of civil rights, equal rights and equal justice, in the 1940s when very few Democrats were and probably most Americans were. But to supporters and followers of Bernie Sanders and Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein he's their political father. He created the vision that they're currently fighting for. A social-democratic or democratic socialist vision that goes farther than the New Deal of that era and even farther than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. He wanted to create a country and government where the central government became the tool to be used to see that no one had to go without anything they needed to live well. Henry Wallace was to the left of Progressive Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt on both economic and foreign policy. And he was FDR's Vice President.

Henry Wallace, didn't believe in fighting the Cold War against Russia. He didn't see communism as some big evil threat to American freedom. Unlike most Progressive Democrats at the time like FDR, Harry Truman and many others. Similar to Bernie Sanders with the Communist Republic of Cuba, Wallace might of founded aspects of communism that he least respected. As it related to economic policy and the welfare state, even as he criticized it for the last lack of human and individual rights. So he certainly wasn't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party back then, or wouldn't be today. Wallace ran third-party for president in 1948, because he couldn't have beaten President Truman in the Democratic primary season. Again Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, have taken his role as the leader for democratic socialism in America, because there isn't a major party that represents them. They're trying to build that movement in and outside of the Democratic Party.

Thanks to Henry Wallace, you have the emergence of the New-Left if the mid and late 1960s. That had both social-democratic and communist factions in it. That was opposed to the Vietnam War, but the Cold War, the American military and American capitalism. That wanted to create a society where government was bigger and more centralized within the Federal Government. And was used to provide the basic benefits that people needed to live well. Instead of receiving those benefits from their employers, or making those choices for them in the private sector. People like Tom Haydon and Bill Ayers and groups like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground, represented the New-Left of this era. And flooded the Democratic Party with all of their members and made it possible for someone like Democratic Socialist Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders of his time) to run for president in 1972 and win the Democratic nomination. Henry Wallace, has made a huge impact on American politics and deserves credit for that.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Reform Party USA: Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley- What is The Reform Party


Reform Party USA: Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley

Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no Reform Party USA today. Why, because what is the Reform Party and what's the point of it? The Reform Party is what the Republican Party use to be and what they believed in. Before they recruited the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right out of the Democratic Party and into the GOP. They use to believe in fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, strong but limited national defense and foreign policy that's not designed to police the world and they were tolerant or federalist on social issues. Not believing that the Federal Government or government in general, should be used to tell how Americans should live their own lives and make their personal decisions for them. That was the GOP of the 1960s that Dwight Eisenhower essentially created in the 1950s, that Tom Dewey tried to create in the 1940s. That also had a growing conservative-libertarian wing in it led by Barry Goldwater and others.

If Donald Trump takes down the Republican Party in November and they lose the House as well as the Senate and he decides to take his movement with him and perhaps launches a new third-party and perhaps some nationalist party, the Reform Party could become relevant for the first time since Ross Perot launched this movement in the early 1990s. Along with the Libertarians and this is how the Republican Party could become a national party again that can win the presidency, because it would have the members and voters, to compete for the presidency and not need gerrymandered House districts to hold a majority in the House. Or low turnout elections to win a majority in the Senate, because again they would have the voters to be able to compete with Democrats everywhere. Or perhaps the GOP dies and the Reform Party emerges as the new Center-Right party in America. And brings in Libertarians and Northeastern Conservative Republicans.

The Reform Party, to me at least represents the Republican Party when it wasn't owned by the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. A party where the Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right European-American nationalist groups, didn't feel at home in. Because it was a big-tent party that welcomed African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jewish-Americans, women, Catholics, immigrants, etc. Where it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and yes even Barry Goldwater. Not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Donald Trump, or the Tea Party. A party that could not only competed in the Northeast with moderate-conservative Republicans, but in the Midwest and the West with Conservative-Libertarians and even California, but in the South as well. And could win high turnout elections, because it had the members and voters to compete everywhere with the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case for the GOP today.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Reason: Why Republicans Should Vote Libertarian- The GOP Case For Gary Johnson


Why should Republicans should vote Libertarian this election? Well why should Conservative Republicans and my mean Conservative-Libertarian Republicans vote Libertarian this election? Because the Republican nominee is a big government Republican. Who couldn't care less about the Constitution if it limits his power, who was once a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat on social issues, before we had an African-American president. And the Democratic nominee is a Progressive Democrat who would raise taxes on the wealthy and has big government leaning when it comes to national security and civil liberties as it relates to the War on Terror. The Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, will be on the ballot in all fifty-states. If the entire Never Tump in movement in the Republican Party goes to Gary Johnson and gets in the debates, voting against Donald Trump, doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is the next president. You could prevent both Hillary and The Donald, from winning the Electoral College and perhaps nominating Gary as president in the House of Representatives.

If you're a Republican who believes that there's too much power with the Federal Government and not enough power with the states and with individuals, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, is you're only choice. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both believe in fiscal responsibility, low taxes and decentralization of government. They're also against big government all together and don't want to take big government out of the economy it put it in people's homes. So the Christian-Right, doesn't have much interest in voting for the Johnson-Weld ticket. Nor does big government national security Neoconservatives, or the Alt-Right, who represents the entire Far-Right in America. But the Republican Party at it's core is still a party that believes in economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government. And even if you don't go with Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, that doesn't necessarily mean you want government to enforce your cultural values on the rest of the country. And force everyone else to live the same way.

The case against Donald Trump and for the Libertarian Party, is a case in favor of limited government . And against someone who believes he should have all the power and tells people he'll fix all of their problems for them, if he has no opposition and no one questions anything that he does. It's a case against big government and right-wing authoritarian fascism, against Vladimir Putin. And a case in favor of limited government and checks and balances. That the executive can't do everything on their own. That we have a Congress, judiciary and two-party system for good reasons. Because we can't afford to trust one person and generally one party to govern this huge diverse country by themselves. You don't have 17 presidential candidates and a divided Republican Party, no way Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee for president. And perhaps The Donald runs as an Independent or starts a nationalist party or something. But he is there presidential nominee and Conservative-Libertarians have a better option for president.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Eagle Forum: Defining the Alt Right- Defining Right-Wing Nationalism in America

Alt-Right American Nazis-
Eagle Forum: Defining the Alt Right

What is the Alt-Right in America and what the hell is it doing linked with the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump? The Republican Party that is supposed to be the Center-Right party in America and the party of Lincoln. The party of Abraham Lincoln the man who freed the African slaves in America, instead of calling for them to be deported back to Africa or even murdered. Which is what segments of the Alt-Right in America like the KKK have called for. That is the subject of this piece and since this movement is liked to the GOP nominee for president Donald Trump, it's time to talk about this.

The Al-Right, is a collection of European-American, primarily Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent German-American nationalist groups. Almost exclusively believe that America belongs to Protestants who come from Britain and Northern Europe originally, west of Scandinavia. They aren't just anti-African or anti-Latino or anti-Middle Eastern or anti-Asian. They're anti-Jewish, they're anti-Slav, they're anti-Mediterranean and even anti-Catholic. Regardless of the person's ethnicity or race. And they're predominantly men and see women as their pets. The Democratic Party, has the Far-Left, or New-Left (if you want to be nice) but the Republican Party has their own fringe movement as well. The Far-Right which again are Northern-European Protestant-American Nationalists. Who see America as only belonging to them. And everyone else as Un-American who don't have a right to exist in the United States.

So why would the Republican presidential nominee want to have anything to do with people like this? Why would Steve Bannon who runs an Alt-Right publication like Breitbart, be associated with his campaign. Why does Donald Trump, say things and take policy positions that get endorsed by Alt-Rightists like Ann Coulter and even David Duke? I've argued before that Donald Trump doesn't even want to be President of the United States, or doesn't have much of an idea how to become president. Which would explain why he would take this route to the presidency since the Alt-Right represents a small and even shrinking population in America. But the Trump Campaign, whatever you think of it, does represents forgotten Americans in this country. Who are predominantly Caucasian, Protestant, Catholic and male. People who believe America is going downhill since the 1960s when multiculturalism became mainstream and America started to become the giant melting pot that we are today.

Not saying that all Trump supporters are Alt-Rightists, but those people are not just part of his base, but now part of his campaign. Which is why The Donald is now losing Republican men and women, who are conservative even, but aren't racists. And true Conservatives aren't racist or bigoted anyway. The Trump Campaign represents the America of the 1950s and Donald Trump is selling a recipe and saying that he can return this America to his supporters. Where English-Americans and Protestants and men from these groups, essentially ran America, with everyone else essentially serving as the servants of these people. Even if Donald Trump is not a racist and bigot himself, he's guilty of trying to sell Americans a vision that he can't create and produce. And asking his supporters to pay up front whether The Donald has any real plan and ability to deliver what he's selling. Donald Trump, is not a politician, but a liar and demagogue, which is even worst. And his voters are buying spoiled meat upfront as a result.