Rik Schneider Online

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

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

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

"Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964 Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo 'The question for Republic..."

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


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.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

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

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

"John Paul's Conservative Buzz From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives 'Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7: The tragedy is that most o..."

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.

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.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

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

American Alt-Right Nazis-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

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.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Prager U: William Voegeli: Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Prager U: William Voegeli: Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?

William Voegeli, like most hyper-partisan right-wingers, makes the classical obvious mistake of mixing up social democracy, or democratic socialism or whatever you prefer, with liberalism. In Europe, Liberals, are considered right-wing. Why? Because Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, are considered Center-Left there. In Canada of all places that constantly gets labeled as a social democracy, even though it has a federal system where the provinces and localities, have real power there, Liberals are considered centrists. Why? Because the social democratic New Democrats, are considered Center-Left or left-wing.

Voegeli, kept saying Liberals want more government and more spending and all the traditional Tea Party propaganda about what liberalism is supposed to be. Replace the name William Voegeli with Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin and you would get the same rhetoric. It’s supposed to be Socialists or Social Democrats, who are terrified of the socialist label (except for Bernie Sanders) who run for the hills every time they hear that label about them. So why are so-called Conservatives like Bill Voegeli afraid to use the s-word when talking about social democracy and socialism more broadly. Because they want to attach Liberals with every big government authoritarian ideology that comes down the pike. Even religious conservatism, whether its Islāmic or Christian. And they’ve been very successful at it at least since the late 1960s.

I’ll answer Bill Voegeli’s question in a couple of ways. The first way somewhat simplistic only because this is a simplistic question. And the second way in a more substantive way. The simple answer government is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what we need it to do. No more or no less, which is basically my definition of limited government. So when it’s doing too much, that’s called big government. When it’s doing too little, that would be called small government. Which is every Libertarian’s marijuana high or drunken fantasy.

The more substantive liberal answer is that you need government to protect, defend and promote.

Protect the people from predators, where law enforcement comes in. Defend the country from predators, which is where defense comes in, but foreign affairs and intelligence as well.

Promote freedom and the general welfare. And that doesn’t mean a welfare state, but protect everyone’s individual freedom and right to be free and live freely, short of hurting any innocent person intentionally or otherwise.

Assist people who need help and for whatever reasons get knocked off their feet. But only help them get by in the short-term as you’re also helping them get themselves up. Finding a job, job training, that sort of thing. Which is basically what the definition of a safety net is.

And then protect consumers and workers from predators that would hurt them in the economy. Not run business’s, but set basic rules again to protect workers and consumers. Which is what a regulatory state is.

Again, I know this sounds simplistic, but we’re dealing with a simplistic question and I’m really just correcting what Bill Voegeli said here anyway. Government is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what it should be doing and nothing more or less. You don’t need a big government managing people’s lives for them from either and economic or personal standpoint. But if you want government doing practically nothing and throwing caution to the wind, try living or visiting a stateless society that has practically no government. And see how long it is before you try to escape from that country.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Bernard Goldberg: "You Know Who Donald Trump's Media Groupies Remind Me Of?"

Donald Trump Network-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Now I know I must be losing it and perhaps need to go through a long extended head examination. Because I’ve just agreed with Bernie Goldberg for the second time in two weeks. The first time two weeks ago at the FNC Republican debate. Where Bernie called Donald Trump essentially a panderer. Whose just telling his supporters what they want to hear essentially and that he would essentially destroy the Republican Party even if somehow he would win the presidency.

Because Donald Trump is so far out on the Right that he won’t be able to come through and if he did he would destroy the party, because Americans tend not to be Far-Right fascists and like the ideas of tolerance and inclusion and not dividing Americans. Bernie’s second point which is what this piece is about has to do with the Trump spokespeople at CNN especially. That the Trump Campaign doesn’t have real media consultants, but media groupies, cult followers that look at The Donald as some God or something that is incapable of doing anything wrong.

Thanks to Donald Trump CNN is getting their best ratings at least since the Malaysian Airlines crash. If not the Trayvon Martin killing in 2012 when they decided to donate their entire network to covering the George Zimmermann trial. But my main point here has to do with the fact I thought I was the only person who noticed this about the Trump spokespeople. Because thanks to the Tea Party/Neocon FOX News Channel and the Far-Left Move On MSNBC, I’m stuck with CNN and C-SPAN as my only real cable news sources. And CNN can’t get enough of the Trump media team.

Every burning house that Donald Trump walks in leaking gas and creating a bigger explosion, his media crew goes out-of-their-way to make it look like he’s completely innocent of whatever bonehead or bigoted thing he just said. The man picks up a KKK endorsement and instead of saying this might be a problem for them, they try to deflect it. And say that Trump is not a racist. Instead of acknowledging that maybe there’s a problem with their message if members of the Ku Klux Klan the most powerful domestic terrorist organization in America are endorsing their candidate.

Donald Trump tells people if they punch protestors in the face, he’ll pay their legal bills. “Back in the old days these protestors would have been taken out on stretchers.” Etc and unfortunately I could go on, but what does his media team that works for him do? Do they say he shouldn’t use violent rhetoric like that in public? No because that would be responsible and perhaps draw less attention and ratings to this horrid reality show of a presidential campaign. They say and I’m paraphrasing that since Mr. Trump didn’t actually hit the protestors himself, he’s innocent of whatever people around him do. Obviously none of these people are lawyers, because they would know about conspiracy to commit. When you get people to commit your crimes for you. Which is why Charles Manson is in prison today.

I swear to God as an Agnostic (so take that for what it’s worth) that Donald Trump could come out in favor bombing abortion clinics and perhaps saying in public that is what the pro-life movement should really do to prove they love Jesus. And his cult followers who are probably all addicted to Trump Vodka or Trumpism, which is a dangerous narcotic that is used to get people behind you, his supporters would say that, “that position just proves how pro-life Donald Trump is. By saying that people should be murdered, because they perform abortion.”

Tomorrow The Donald could come out in favor of President Obama and say how great of a man he truly is and a great president. And all of that birtherism was fun and games. And his cult followers would say, “see! We told you that Mr. Trump is a uniter and not a divider. He’s trying to rally the country behind our president.” Okay, the last one is a stretch about as long as the Mississippi River or Donald Trump’s hands, but you get the idea. But similar with any religious or now political cult, first with Ron Paul earlier this decade and now Donald Trump, their man is incapable of doing anything wrong. There’s no such thing as personal responsibility when it comes to their leader. Every time something goes wrong, it’s someone else’s fault. Or there’s some larger conspiracy trying to bring him down with these people. And they’ve created a really dangerous political environment for America as a result.