Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Sean Hannity: Dr. Qanta Ahmed- Here's What Life Under Sharia Law Is Like For A Woman

Source: Dr. Quanta Ahmed-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

For the life of me I don't understand why so-called Progressives today stand up for Sharia Law, or at the very least do not speak out against it and instead label Liberals when we speak out against it and even speak the truth about as bigots. How is Sharia Law any better than the Christian-Right in America. Where in the Bible Belt can women not vote, drive a car, not be able to travel without a male chaperone, have to cover their faces and completely cover their bodies when put in public, not even allowed to swim, risk death if they're caught committing adultery. Where in the Bible Belt can gays be put to death by their government simply for being gay? I'm not a fan of the Christian-Right obviously. At the very least they're stuck in a world that no longer exists and are authoritarian bigots as well.

As Richard Dawkins said on Bill Maher back in October, 'if Islamism and Sharia Law is part of the Islamists as today's so-called Progressives have claimed, then the hell with their culture.' What is progressive about treating women and gays like second-class citizens and even slaves. This is authoritarianism at its worst and to a certain extent even makes Marxism and Christian Conservatism, look moderate at best. At one point I didn't think that was ever possible with how authoritarian both of those ideologies are especially when it comes to individuality and expression. Anyone who calls them self a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist, should hate Sharia Law. Because it goes against everything that you at least say you are in favor of. Being a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist.

Everyone on the Left especially people who are either Atheists, or my case Agnostic, should not just hate Sharia Law, but speak out against it. And stand up for minority rights, gays and women in these countries that live under Sharia Law. Like the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, just to use as two examples. And not call people bigots simply speaking the truth against a non-Christian religion where the members of it are overwhelmingly non-Caucasian and especially non-Anglo Saxon. In the name of political correctness, because you have some Far-Left Utopian notion that minorities including religious minorities, have some right to never be criticized and offended about anything.
Qanta Ahmed: Human Rights in Saudi Arabia


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The Concluding Chapters: Rita Hayworth in The Bastard 1968

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Concluding Chapters: Rita Hayworth in The Bastard 1968

A chance to see Rita Hayworth in color and when she was still very cute and beautiful. Not how she looked in the 1940s and 50s, but still looking very good and sounding great. Her voice always made her sound a lot younger than she actually was and her smile always made her seem younger as well. And she still had the body as well as we’re still talking about one of the top actress’s in Hollywood as well. She was truly special and I just wish we could have seen a lot more of her in color, before she was born for color TV and film.

As far as this film whether you want to call it the Sons of Satan, or The Bastard and I might add The Bastards, because we’re talking about two sons who are brothers who are professional criminals as thieves, it’s the same thing. Two guys who went real bad and one of them even worst by beating the hell out of his brother to keep all the money and jewels that they just stole together. These are guys that only their beautiful adorable mother could love, while their father goes out of their way to pretend he doesn’t even know them and perhaps wears disguises when he’s seen with his sons. So people don’t think he’s their father.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald- Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald- Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

The Neo-Communists and Neo-Marxists, (as I at least call them in Venezuela) finally not only have some competition, but a liberal democratic opposition to their authoritarian rule. And shows that there’s even a limit to the mount of socialism that Venezuelans will put up with in their country. Especially when it comes with a high cost of the lost of personal freedom and a strong economy. Just as the Cuban economy is improving and the economy starting to move again in Columbia, the Socialist Maduro Administration in Venezuela has seen their economy collapse.

Because of falling oil prices in their country and the Venezuelan government’s Marxist miss-management of their economy, a country that is energy independent and yet not able to pay for their bare essentials like toilet paper and even food. The people in Venezuela stood up and demanded change and chose the liberal democratic opposition the Democratic Party there, which in Venezuela would be considered right-wing, which tells you how Far-Left the current government in Venezuela is. And now The Maduro Administration will have an opposition Assembly that it will have to deal with. With real limits on their power.

It’s not so much socialism that is the problem here, but how far you go with it and are you democratic or not and allow for real personal and even economic freedom, including a free press, free speech and a true opposition. Or do you concentrate so much power in the central government, the executive and head of state. To look after and take care of everyone else for them. Which is what happened in Cuba fifty-five years ago and perhaps would happen in Venezuela if the Neo-Communists there were allowed to hold on power indefinitely.

What the Venezuelan people did with their Assembly elections is to say that there’s a limit to what they expect one government and one political party to do for them and what they’ll allow to do to them. That you can’t blame America and Venezuela’s allies for all the problems that are going on in Venezuela. That at some point a political party, the Neo-Marxist Socialist Party in Venezuela that has had all the power in Caracas for the last 16 years has to take responsibility for the condition of the country.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Newsmax: Newsmax Prime- J.T. Hayworth Interviewing Allan Ryskind About Dalton Trumbo

Source: Newsmax-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I haven't seen the Dalton Trumbo movie yet so I can't really comment on it at least in a credible sense and I'm not going to take the word of J.T. Hayworth and Allan Ryskind on it as well. Who both come from a very heavy right-wing partisan slant on it to say the least. Whatever you think of Dalton Trumbo's politics and I'm not a Socialist, democratic or otherwise, we're still talking about his politics here. The only reason why he was brought up in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 was because of his politics.

The so-called Red Scare at the start of the Cold War that drove a lot of Americans crazy in believing that communism was so dangerous that a great liberal democracy like America, which is the opposite of communism, couldn't survive in the same world as communism. That it wasn't just communist policies and communist states that had to be defeated and destroyed, but communist beliefs as well. That you needed a fascist state coming from the Far-Right, where everyone looked at politics and the world from the same point of view and all shared the exact same values. That is not freedom and free speech, but a form of fascism.

Dalton Trumbo, wasn't brought in front of HUAC because he was a communist agent for the Soviet Union or a spy or something like the Rosenberg's. He was brought in front of HUAC because he was  a Socialist in Hollywood and had a big mic and stage to get out his political beliefs. As much as the right-wing anti-Communist Warriors said they were defending freedom and liberty in the 1940s and 1950s, it would have been nice if only those things were true. Because instead they were defending what they claimed they were against. Which was fascism and statism.

You can say that Freedom of Speech is so important and that liberal democracy is so powerful that all views are welcomed to be expressed, because we're so strong as a country that we can tolerate extreme views from both the Far-Left and Far-Right and that Americans will be able to make up their own minds on these issues. But these things don't mean anything if you don't actually believe in them. What you do instead is say that freedom and free speech is so important that we have to stand up for the right for everyone to have their own views and be able to express them. Even if they're fringe and then hold them accountable for what they believe and say. But not try to shut them up and then we'll have true freedom and free speech.
Newsmax: Newsmax Prime- J.T. Hayworth Interviewing Allan Ryskind: Discusses a New Movie About Communism Inside Hollywood


Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Notes on Liberty: Brandon Christensen- From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and The Civil War in Syria

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress: Notes on Liberty: Brandon Christensen- From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and The Civil War in Syria

An interesting idea to dealing with ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. But I gotta tell you its a non-starter. The idea that Turkey would unilaterally give up Kurdistan whether it’s in Turkey, Syria, or even Iraq, where they’re now involved in taking on Iraqi forces there that they are claim are terrorists, it aint happening. America, Iraq and Europe, who are all now involved in trying to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria, need Turkey on our side here. And they are already there bombing ISIS in Syria and we could use their troops on the ground as well. They know the land and people, being neighbors and everything else.

America, can’t take out ISIS by ourselves, or take out Bashar Al-Assad by ourselves. Unless you want to occupy another country 20-25 million people who doesn’t like us. And then end up being bailed out ourselves financially, by the IMF or even China, because we’re already so heavy in debt. And American taxpayers simply won’t pay for this especially if we’re by ourselves again in another Arab-Muslim land and country that doesn’t like us. And our taxpayers aren’t going to pay for this in either new taxes or budget cuts to programs they care about.

Which leaves us to a non-libertarian non-dovish and isolationist solution here. Which is called liberal internationalism and putting together a broad coalition that includes America, as well as Europe, Turkey, Iraq, the Iraqi-Kurds, to not only destroy ISIS and knock them completely out of power like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but knocks the Assad Regime out of power as well. America and Europe through the air in what is called a no fly zone, which is what we did in Libya four years ago. Turkey, the Syrian rebels, Iraq and hopefully Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the ground.

And tell that Russian bullish asshole Vlad Putin, that he can be part of the solution here and have a stake in the new Syria where millions of Syrians don’t want to overthrow their own government, because they’re no longer living under a Baathist psycho dictator, or they can be part of the problem. And risk having another one of their planes shot down in Syria this time. But from a first-world NATO jet, or firepower. America, can’t do this ourselves, certainly Iraq and Syria can’t do it either. We could take out Bashar Al-Assad and his regime by ourselves, but again that would leave us with another mid-size to big country that we would be stuck occupying. We have to do this through coalition.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Robert Farley- What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Robert Farley- What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?

To answer Robert Farley's question, I think the answer would be chaos. If you think 2003 was a bad time to invade and take out the Hussein Regime in Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, that would have been a great time compared with 1991. We take out Saddam in 1991 and he's either replaced by another Baathist dictator like one of his sons and what would we have gained from that? Or almost twenty-five years later we're still trying to occupy Iraq today. America, was in recession in 1991 and had its own economic and financial problems at home. And couldn't afford to take on the responsibility of occupying another big country.

And the economic boom that we had in the 1990s probably doesn't come about in America, because we're spending so much money in Iraq. At least in 2003 there was something that looked like an opposition and there were people that could come in and at least temporarily run the Iraqi Republic. It just took them more than two-years after the invasion to make that come about. There wasn't any at least moderate opposition to the Baathists in 1991. There was Saddam and his Baathists and anyone who opposed them risked their own lives as a result.

The 1991 Gulf War was a very simply and well-executed. Get Iraq out of Kuwait and protect our economic and energy interests in Kuwait. That war was in the national and self-interest of the United States. To not have a Baathist dictator in charge of one of the largest oil suppliers in the world to go on top of his already large supply of oil and gas in Iraq. This was not some idealistic neoconservative utopian war that was about bringing freedom and liberal democracy to a country of twenty-million that had no idea what those things were.

President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Council, didn't want to invade and occupy a country about the size of California in land and about the same population as Texas. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, an Arab ally of America's. All they wanted to do was get Iraq out of Kuwait and put Iraq in a tight box so they couldn't invade anyone else again. Which they remained in for the next twelve years with Iraq being so weak that they had a hard time feeding themselves. In were never in any position to attack another country again.

The 1991 Gulf War, was conservative foreign policy and national security at its best. Protect American national interests which was the energy supply coming from Kuwait. Which has a peaceful and moderate regime, as well as a strong economy. And get an evil tyrant out of that country and box him in so he can't invade anyone else. Not to bring peace and liberal democracy to a country that has never heard of those things. The Gulf War, was probably H.W. Bush's finest days as President of the United States, with the grand coalition of European and Arab allies that he bad behind him.

And why you wanted someone who his professional and national security background as Commander-In-Chief in a time like that. Instead of having a dove in there who generally sees American strength and use of force as a bad if not evil think, who tends to be against the American military and things that it does. Or someone in there who would've done nothing and froze, because they didn't know what to do. Because they lacked the experience and judgement in foreign affairs. And another reason why the 2003 Iraq War was an unnecessary mistake, because we already had Saddam under control and so weak to the point that Iraq didn't even bother defending themselves in that war.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The American Conservative: Opinion: Tom Switzer- Dean of the Realists

Owen Harries-TAC-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The American Conservative: Opinion: Tom Switzer- Dean of the Realists

This might strange and even harsh, but the end of the Cold War was bad for the Republican Party and perhaps Conservatives as well. During the Cold War we all knew who was the enemy in America, both Conservatives and Liberals. Which was Marxist Communism and Marxists Communists and when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no longer a dominant Marxist Communist country that posed a real threat to the United States. No longer a country that was powerful enough to reach the United States to destroy it, or defeat us in a war.

People will point to the People’s Republic of China, but there a couple of problems there. China has never had the power that the Soviet Union had at least militarily even though their economy now is larger and stronger than Russia’s ever was pre or post-Soviet Union. And even by the 1990s China had already started moving away from Marxist command and control state-run economics and started privatizing a lot of their economy. China, will probably become the world’s next superpower both economically and militarily, unless the European Union were to unify first, but China is not there even today.

Without that large Marxist state that Conservatives could point to as the enemy, they were left without a real enemy that posed a real threat to America. During the Cold War, foreign policy both from a conservative and liberal vantage point was easy. Be strong enough to be able to defeat Russia if we were to ever go to war, but hope you never have to do that by having a foreign policy that prevents that type of war form ever happening. As well as being strong enough to defend your allies if they are ever under attack. The whole purpose of NATO during the Cold War.

Containment, followed by the negotiated surrender and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was American Cold War policy in the 1980s. Without the Cold War there was a void left, because now America no longer needed to be strong enough to defeat the Soviet Union. Russia’s, economy was collapsing and they were moving to a form of state capitalism themselves, similar to what China did in the 1970s and 1980s. So the foreign policy debate in America became about how strong do we need to be to defeat who.

Another problem that Cold War Conservatives had is that they lost power in the early 1990s and wouldn’t be in the White House again for the rest of that decade after Bill Clinton and the Democrats were elected and reelected in 1992 and 1996. And it took the Clinton Administration a solid three years to figure out what their post-Cold War foreign policy was going to be as well. We no longer needed a Cold War military to defeat the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union was no longer around.

So both Democrats and Republicans agreed as part of deficit reduction in the 1990s to reduce the size of the military and the question became how strong we need to be to take on who. The Clinton Administration decided that it was going to fight against ethnic genocide in the Balkans, even though Yugoslavia was never a threat to America. And fight international terrorism, even though most of the terrorism was being performed by non-state actors.America was left as the lone superpower in the world almost left to wonder what they should do with all of their power.

By 2000-01, the fight against ethnic genocide became the so-called War on Terror after 9-11, even though America has officially been fighting against Islamic terrorism since the late 1970s if not longer. And we were no longer fighting a large superstate that was capable of destroying us, or really any other country that could destroy us. And there wasn’t any real precedent for fighting terrorist groups that were large and powerful enough to occupy territory and states. We were no longer trying to destroy, or prevent a superstate from trying to destroy us, but eliminate individual terrorist groups and brutal dictators from supplying these groups with weapons.

Even if those regimes didn’t have any history of working with terrorist groups. And I thinking of course about the War in Iraq. So this conservative realist foreign policy that was not about trying to destroy and eliminate a big powerful regime. But preventing them from destroying is and our allies. Was replaced by a neoconservative foreign policy on the Right that was about eliminating rogue regimes that we didn’t like. That weren’t a threat to us, but their own people. Expanding democracy even in countries that never heard of it. Neoconservative idealism had replaced conservative realism in the 2000s until it was replaced by American voters and dropped by the Republican Party. And the GOP has struggled with foreign policy ever since.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Noah Rothman- The Party of Religious Freedom?

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Noah Rothman- The Party of Religious Freedom?

The First Amendment- Prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. That is just covers Freedom of Religion in the United States under the First Amendment.

I don't like blogging about Donald Trump, because he's not a real presidential candidate. He's simply looking to further his own one-man reality TV career and perhaps get another book and documentary that of course is all about The Donald. As if there's nothing else going on in the world and no one else to write about. And if you watch CNN on the regular basis, you might get that impression from them anyway. But The Donald is pandering to a group of Americans on the Far-Right inside the Republican Party who believes only they have Freedom of Religion in America. And everyone else is subjected to what big government will allow them. Karl Marx would be proud.

The Republican Party and I think the establishment has already figured this out, but the party as a whole needs to decide are they going to be a party of Freedom of Religion, or are they going to be a fascist party that only tolerates religion and speech that they agree with. In other words is Freedom of Religion real for all believers and non-believers, or just for fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. Does Freedom of Speech cover all speech including offensive and critical speech of minorities, but speech that could come off as even anti-American to Democrats. Or just speech that Republicans agree with. Do Republicans want to be a party of freedom, or a fascist party that only supports the rights of people that Neoconservatives and the Far-Right already agree with.

With The Donald, again a one-man reality TV star that is keeping CNN and MSNBC in business all by himself, but shouldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But the Far-Right, the Ann Coulter's, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan's, etc of the world actually believe in this, garbage (to be kind) and would have no problem with either shutting down Mosques and rounding up all Muslims and perhaps Arabs in general. Either through executive force, or passing a couple constitutional amendments to do that, because neither one is constitutional right now. And that is what makes a pander and demagogue like Donald Trump dangerous. Because he will never come within a thousand delegates or more of winning the GOP nomination for president, or 270 votes of winning the Electoral College of winning the presidency as an Independent. But there plenty of people out there on the Far-Right who take him seriously and are using him for their own means.

Monday, November 30, 2015

New York Daily News: Opinion- S.E. Cupp- Breaking up With The Constitution

Source: The Wall Street Journal- Donald Trump & Ben Carson-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Damn! I agree with S.E. Cupp on something. Perhaps its time to reëxamine my political beliefs and news opinions. No, not really, but she makes a great point here about the Republican Party and two of their, to be nice eccentric presidential candidates in Donald Trump and Ben Carson. I say on a regular basis as a Democrat that I miss the days of Newt Gingrich. Forget about Ronald Reagan, I would just like to go back to the mid and late 1990s with Newt.

Because as partisan as Newt was he’s also a very intelligent man and someone who not just believes in government, but knows how to govern. He knew he had a Democratic president, he knew he had fairly small Republicans majorities in the House and that Senate Republicans had tight majorities as well. Meaning that there was only so much that Congressional Republicans could do by themselves with a Democratic president and tight majorities in Congress. Yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich did shutdown the Federal Government in 1995, because he couldn’t sit with President Clinton on Air Force One. But he learned from his mistakes and they passed Welfare to Work together in 1996.

But forget about Newt for a minute. It would be nice just to go back to 2011-12 and instead of hearing Republicans talking about threat of Islam inside of America and having the U.S. Government trample the First Amendment and our Freedom of Religion, something that Republicans say they support, but would have the Feds break into Mosques and round Muslims and Arabs in general like the Japanese, Italians and Germans were in World War II, we would hear Republicans claiming to be Constitutional Conservatives.

Even with all of their new big government constitutional amendments to the Constitution. (Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum come to mind) Like putting the Federal Government in charge of marriage and what people can watch on TV and do in their free times. At least they were talking about the Constitution. And again in Newt’s case he actually understands the Constitution. But at least the GOP was talking about the importance of the Constitution and claiming to support it. Even as they were proposing to rewrite it even in the same speech. Like with Representative Bachmann, when she announced for president in the summer of 2011. And calling same-sex marriage a threat to national security. At least she claimed to love the Constitution.

But no! We can’t even have the good ole days of big government Republicans proposing to outlaw same-sex marriage and pornography and even gambling from the Federal level. They’ve gotten even crazier with The Donald and Dr. Ben, proposing to close down Mosques, round-up Arabs and tell college students what they can think and hear while they’re at college. Speaking of political correctness and fascism, that is what it looks like from the Far-Right in America. The GOP, the party of religious freedom, just as long as they agree with your religion and your religious beliefs. At least with the Far-Right.

S.E. Cupp, is a true Conservative and so is Senator Rand Paul and several others in Congress, because they not just believe in the Constitution, but understand what they actually believe. With Donald Trump, 2016 is about his latest realty TV show or documentary called, Who Wants Donald Trump For President? In a theater or on a TV near you in 2017. With Ben Carson, welcome back to the 1950s and giving Joe McCarthy a good name by comparison. The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, would be shitting asteroids if they saw what some of the Republican presidential candidates were proposing today.
CNN: The Lead With Jack Tapper- Donald Trump Goes After Ben Carson Ahead of Debate


Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion- Peter Harris- Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism and Current World Crises

President Barack Obama, United States-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

To put it mildly the world is a lot more complicated now and the developed world which is mostly in the West is different now and less united than it once was. America and Europe, still believe in great liberal values like freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, personal freedom, self-ownership, the ability for one to live freely and make a good life for themselves and basic human rights and civil liberties. And even though we’re no longer fighting Marxism and Communism in general at least in the traditional sense, the West is dealing with a different type of authoritarianism that in many cases is not state-sponsored and organized from some authoritarian state.

Islamism, and private Islamist groups, have now replaced Marxism as the main competitor when it comes to liberalism and liberal values. The liberal order, to use a German term, is now facing Islamism as its main enemy when it comes to whether countries are going to live in free societies that are governed responsibly. Or are they going to live in the stone ages where women, gays and non-Muslims are treated like second or third-class citizens and even prisoners. The West and their Arab allies, haven’t figured out how to deal with Islamism and ISIS effectively yet. For one, a lot of those Arab states don’t believe in liberal values and human rights and are just looking to protect their own authoritarian regimes and monarchies, but don’t want to move to some fourth or fifth-world theocracy. The other being the West, America and Europe, aren’t sure about how much they are willing to invest to fight ISIS in Arabia.

This is a different battle or war taking on Islamism than the Cold War. During the Cold War, the main and really only major enemy to America and Europe was Russia and their Marxist Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China, was still a very poor Marxist society similar to North Korea today for most of the Cold War. With Islamism, it’s not countries that we have to fight for the most part. But groups and groups powerful enough to knock out weak government’s and states and take at least part for their land. As they’ve done in both Iraq and Syria. But the only way you defeat a group like ISIS is through a strong broad committed coalition, which is what liberal internationalism is. That is going to go in and take on ISIS until they’ve defeated them. If you want to protect liberal democracy, liberal values and free societies, you have to fight for them and be united behind that.



Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Marmar: Rita Hayworth 1967 Interview- Still The Love Goddess

The Love Goddess!
Marmar: Rita Hayworth 1967 Interview- Still The Love Goddess

The only thing that I would have liked to seen more with Rita Hayworth is Rita in color. She is truly special to look at and to listen to, but black and white simply doesn’t do her justice. I saw They Came to Condura with Rita, Gary Cooper and several others last night and she’s in her early forties at this point, but she still had everything including the great voice, face, hair and body. And was still a hell of an actress. And stick her with a group of U.S. Army soldiers in the Mexican desert where there isn’t another women for perhaps hundred of miles and they haven’t drank or smoked in days and they got this red-hot Spanish goddess with them whose technically their prisoner and guys could end up doing things they wouldn’t normally do when they’re living in much better living conditions.

I made this point before, Rita Hayworth was made for color TV and film and I just wish she became a star in the 1960s, or even 1950s. She was a constant entertainer and goddess that had put guys in sweet dreams for weeks even if they were at war. Even this 1967 TV interview when of course color TV and film were common if not standard by then, was shot in black and white. But again because of how gorgeous and cute she was with that great voice, very similar to Raquel Welch, you can still see how great she was even in black and white and even in her late forties when she was no longer the top Hollywood Goddess in popularity, or perhaps anything else. But she still had it and was still able to grab people’s attention and focus on her.


Monday, November 23, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a Reboot



The National Interest: Opinion: Christopher A. Preble: Expecting More from Our Allies: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a Reboot

You can't be both a Neoconservative who wants America to police the world mostly if not completely by ourselves and be a fiscal Conservative who puts real limits on what government can do. Who doesn't want to consistently be borrowing money, running up deficits and expects government to pay for most if not all of its government operations as least when times are good. Speaking as a non-fiscal conservative, but fiscal Conservatives prioritize government spending. They lay out what is the money coming in and figure out exactly what government needs to do and then they pay for it.

A Progressive, is different and would try to figure out exactly what government should do without putting many if any limits on it and try to figure out how to pay for it. Even if that requires borrowing the money. Same thing with Neoconservatives who actually tend to be somewhat progressive when it comes to economic policy. George W. Bush in the 2000s, is an example of that. Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, who wanted to use government to move people out of poverty through work and job training. And encourage business's to hire people on Welfare. Speaker Paul Ryan, very similar today.

So if you just look at foreign policy and national security from a fiscal conservative point of view and not from a liberal internationalist or smart power point of view, or even a dovish perspective, having American taxpayers pay for the national security of other developed countries who can economically afford and have the population to defend themselves, doesn't make good fiscal sense, or even national security sense. Also it is not just American taxpayers who pay for other developed countries national defense in taxes. They also pay for it in higher interest rates because of the national debt and that we borrow from countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan, to defend them.

Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, maybe three of them are actually fiscal Conservatives. In party that is supposed to be a conservative party. And I'm thinking Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich and perhaps Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, wants to spend another trillion-dollars on national defense and invest even more money in having America try to defend Europe for Europe and Arabia for Arabia, Japan for Japan and South Korea for South Korea. All of the countries are developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia and South Korea, already have two of the largest militaries and defense budgets in the world. The European Union if they were a country, their economy would be roughly the size of the United States. How come they can't pay for their own national defense? They can, but have chosen not to. Why pay for your own defense, when someone else does that for you. The mind of a Socialist I guess.

America, can't afford to have a small military and defense budget, but we sure as hell can't afford to police the world ourselves. Especially when we're stuck with a twenty-trillion-dollar national debt and we're borrowing money from countries in order to defend the countries that we're borrowing money from. For America to be as secure as possible, financially, economically and security, other countries especially Europe, has to at least play their own part when it comes to their own national defense, as well as dealing with international challenges when they come as well like Syria and Iraq. Socialism, is cheap when you don't have to pay for your own security. Europe, would be a lot less socialist if they had to pay for their own defense and not expect America to do that for them.


Saturday, November 21, 2015

The Weekly Standard: Fred Barnes- "Hollywood Myth-Making and Blacklisting": Dalton Trumbo, a Victim of State-Fascism

Source: The Weekly Standard-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

This blog covers political correctness and how that is a threat to free speech on a regular basis. Especially in the last couple of years where political correctness had made a big comeback on the college left in America. With probably thousands of students if not more who believe that any criticism of minorities in America and even individuals is not only bigoted, but should be illegal. Which of course would be clearly unconstitutional if Congress ever passed some law protecting minorities in America from criticism through governmental force. But as most people know and believe fascism and political correctness just doesn’t come from the Far-Left and if anything has more support for it on the Far-Right. And used to put down Americans who simply see the world, country and live different lifestyles than the Christian-Right and others on the Far-Right in America.

Lets say that everything that Fred Barnes said about Dalton Trumbo is true and I’m not ready to grant him that. What was Dalton Trumbo guilty of? Failing to answer whether he was a Communist or not to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. He wasn’t even charged with being a Communist agent for Russia and working to destroy the American liberal democratic form of government, or anything like that. He was brought to HUAC simply for being under suspicion for at the very least having ties to Communists and having communist beliefs and even being a member of the Communist Party. He wasn’t charged with anything that is illegal in America. At the end of the day that is what this is about. Cold Warriors still living the Cold War wanting to eliminate communism at all costs even at the expense of rounding people up simply for having communist leanings.

I’m not a Communist obviously and I hate Communism as a political ideology and perhaps only see Islamism as a worst form of a big government statist philosophy. But to arrest someone for simply being a Communist and sharing that philosophy when they’ve done nothing illegal, is supporting something that Anti-Communists are supposed to be against. Which is big government fascism that says either you are with us hundred-percent of the time, or you’re with the enemy. Dalton Trumbo, was a Hollywood screenwriter and filmmaker who was also a member of the United States Communist Party. So what? We are a great liberal democracy with a constitutional guarantee of free speech. The most liberal free speech rights in the world, at least among large developed countries. We can are free to associate with any groups that we want as long as we aren’t involved in criminal activities.

Dalton Trumbo wasn’t brought to Congress to testify to the House about being a criminal and to talk about his criminal activities, because he wasn’t accused of being involved in any crimes. He was brought to Congress to talk about his possible membership with Communist USA. The Communist Party in America. And declined to answer whether he was a Communist or not, because he didn’t want to be charged with perjury, or have to worry about never working in Hollywood again and being blacklisted. Because the studios were scared as hell of Communists and Communism as well back in the 1940s and 1950s and didn’t want any suspicion of even being associated with Communists. Trumbo, was a Communist not a criminal and never should have been brought in front of the House to answer where he was a Communist or not in the first place.
Movie Clips Trailers: Trumbo Official 2015 Trailer



Thursday, November 19, 2015

Prager U: Jonah Goldberg- What is Social Justice?

Prager U: Jonah Goldberg- What is Social Justice?

From this video all you hear is Jonah Goldberg’s definition of social justice. So take it for what it is worth, but that is not it. Social justice, or term I prefer as an actual Liberal and not Jonah Goldberg’s week-long drinking binge’s idea of a Liberal, is purely economic freedom. A society where everyone can do well and live in freedom. Where poverty is almost not recognizable, because everyone regardless of their income level has an opportunity to get a good education and get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job and live well in freedom. Perhaps even start their own successful business, or manage one. Not have to live off of public assistance whether they are working or not, because they have a good job that allows for them to comfortably take care of themselves.

Jonah Goldberg’s idea of social justice is what you hear in the video. Big government with both of its paws stuck down the rich man’s wallet and in their bank accounts to take from him to take care of people who struggle just to eat everyday and feed their kids at the same time and avoid being evicted from their public housing unit. But again that is not it, because we’re talking about what President Clinton called an Opportunity Society. Not some Socialist Utopian Society, where government take cares of everyone, but an Opportunity Society where everyone can live well. Because every kid can go to a good school and for the low-skilled low-income workers and opportunity for them to complete and further their education. So they can get off of public assistance and live well in life with a good job.

Conservatives and Libertarians, love to talk about redistribution of wealth. Perhaps as much as Progressives like to talk about tax the rich. But the only way government can exist is by redistributing wealth. Unless you want to live in a Marxist State where government owns all forms of enterprise. You won’t see many hands go up in the air when you ask, who wants to live in a Marxist State? So of course government is going to redistribute wealth and the question is how. One way to do that is to tax people in Atlanta to pay for a highway in St. Louis, or tax St. Louis to pay for a military base in San Diego.

When it comes to social justice the way to do that is to tax people who are doing well to pay for good schools in low-income communities. Or to give low-income workers and people on Welfare the ability to go back to school and finish their education and get themselves a good job. Night school, community college, private and public job training programs. So they can live in economic freedom as well. Which saves money for your public assistance budget, because you have fewer people who actually need public assistance at all. Social justice, is an Opportunity Society where everyone can do well. Not a Socialist Utopian Society, where government takes care of everyone.


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Movie Documentary: Biography of The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth

The Love Goddess
Movie Documentary: Biography of The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth

Margarita Casino, to me sounds like a better sexier name than Rita Hayworth. Sort of like Raquel Tejada, but its hard to lose with Raquel Welch. I would have loved to see Rita as a Spanish brunette that she originally was, but she was red-hot redhead. Kind of hard to lose with Rita Hayworth. Whether she goes by Hayworth or Casino, or as a brunette, or as a red-head, because she was a goddess regardless of whatever her name was, or what color her hair was. She was someone you see her once and it is like you've seen her everyday and knew her like your brother or something, because you never forgot her. That is the true test of a goddess is do guys especially remember and talk about you or not. Do they say, "yeah she was pretty", as they're moving on with whatever they're doing, or do they remember you and fantasize about you and can't wait to see you again.

Rita, was the Love Goddess and one of the top Hollywood Goddess's of all-time. But she was more than a gorgeous sexy red-head with an adorable smile and sweet voice. She's also one of the top actress's and entertainer of all-time. The most popular at least female star of the 1940s and the best actress of that decade as well. In an era where movies were movies and where you actually had to be able to act and deliver lines and where there were great lines to deliver. And where movies weren't put together simply to take advantage of the latest hot celebrity's pop culture appeal. She was the best of the best in what was really the Golden Age of Hollywood which was the 1940s and 1950s. And I'm not sure that we've seen an entertainer this talented and this attractive at the same time since.

Rita Hayworth, was a princess, but she was a Hollywood Princess. The Princess of Hollywood, who was treated like loyalty and kept guys going during World War II and perhaps the Korean War. Giving millions of American soldiers and marines, all the motivation that they needed to survive those wars. To see a talent like that become the wife of a prince where she's all over the world especially in Europe, but not in Hollywood making movies and writing songs and doing dances, almost seems like a waste of talent. Especially when this was going on in the highest point of her career in the late 1940s. And then coming back to Hollywood after her marriage with Prince Aly Khan and getting movie roles that people and movies women just starting out would have gotten, seems like a damn shame to me. Because she really was the Princess of Hollywood.


Saturday, November 14, 2015

Rod Willerton: NBC's Hollywood & The Stars: The Odyssey of Rita Hayworth

Rod Willerton: NBC's Hollywood & The Stars: The Odyssey of Rita Hayworth

Was Rita Hayworth the Raquel Welch of her generation, or was Raquel Welch the Rita Hayworth of her generation? We could probably debate that until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over. I would give a slight edge to Rita, because she is literally one of the top Hollywood actress’s and entertainers of all-time. Raquel, also a great entertainer, but not in that same class. Both women, red-hot, really cute and really sexy. Both have great voices, both move very well, both very bright and pick up things very quickly. It is rare that you’ll find an entertainer who is this great and looks this great at the same time. Where you’re watching her and you not only never forget her in a movie that she was in, but you don’t forget the movie as well. Rita, had that and is still the standard for how other Hollywood goddess’ are judged today.

The only thing with Rita Hayworth is that I wish she came out 20-25 years later. Imagine if she came out even in the late 1950s, or 1960s, with the same talents, intelligence, physical beauty, the body and how she moved and all of those movies and images in color. Can you imagine her playing a biker women, or cowgirl, a rock star, or something? Again with that voice, body and goddess beauty, that adorable smile and voice. Pal Joey, which she did with Frank Sinatra and baby goddess Kim Novak in the late 1950s, is great opportunity to see her in color. She’s the female lead in that movie. Miss Sadie Thompson from 1954, or 55, that she did with Jose Ferer, is a great film for her. In that movie she’s an incredible entertainer. Singer and dancer, who also has a very sharp lip and wit. With twenty different marines or more all wanting a piece of her.

I’m just starting to learn about The Love Goddess and getting familiar with her movies and career. But similar to again Raquel Welch, Liz Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, there’s so much about her that is interesting and worth learning about her. She’s truly a treasure who didn’t burn out in her thirties or forties and to never be hard of again. A star by the time she was in her early twenties in 1940, all the way through the 1970s. We are not talking about one of the most talented entertainers of all-time that had she not drank so much, or wasn’t so depressed, that she could’ve had a great career. Stories that you do see in the movies and on TV. We’re talking about literally one of the best entertainers of all-time. Perhaps top 3-5 actress’s ever and perhaps the best looking actress ever. An entertainer, who was a great actress, singer and dancer and she’s still truly special.


Friday, November 13, 2015

Prager U: Derryck Green: Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?

Prager U: Derryck Green: Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?

This video is so stupid that I really can only make fun of it. Because to take it seriously you would have to assume that everything this guy said in this video is accurate. And to do that you might need to take a four-hundred pound man who hasn’t seen their own two feet since they were a kid seriously, when they say diet and exercise is a good thing. Because how would he know, he’s never done either.

I think I’ll go to the so-called voter ID issue. The countries that he point out that have voter ID laws, don’t have the history of racial discrimination that we’ve had. Where one race of Americans, or Europeans have been denied the ability to vote and go to good schools and even be allowed to be educated simply because of their race. Those countries tend to be racially and ethnically pure, by in large. With very small populations of racial and ethnic minorities.

Unlike America where the whole world lives here. Where we don’t have an ethnic majority. The two largest ethnic groups in America, the Germans, such as myself and the English, are both about twenty-percent each. In within thirty years or so America will no longer have a racial majority population as well. The European-American population is falling. And since Derryck Green says that Europe has voter ID laws, so should we, they also have universal higher education. Where their federal government’s are the primary payer when it comes to college education. Where everyone in the country can afford to go to college. Does Mr. Green want that higher education system for America as well? I don’t and I’m a Liberal. No such thing as free education, or free anything else that government does.

The fact is if you’re a Liberal, or a Conservative, you’re not a racist. Racism, is built on stupidity and ignorance, hate and perhaps some form of craziness. Where you see things about people who simply aren’t there. Where you judge people by their hair, or complexion, instead of how they present themselves as an individual which is their character. You look at characteristics of other members of a race and assume that everyone in that race is exactly the same. I’ll probably never get a Tea Partier, or Neoconservative to believe this, but tolerance is a huge liberal value, along with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice. Conservatives, are taught to treat people as individuals and not as members of groups. Individualism, is a big conservative value. So if you actually are a Liberal, or a Conservative, you’re not a racist. But you might play a Liberal, or Conservative on TV, or online.


Wednesday, November 11, 2015

JCN Soul: Johnny Cash- I Won't Back Down

JCN Soul: Johnny Cash- I Won't Back Down

“I Won’t Back down”, I believe is the perfect song to use as a motivator for a football team that the head coach could use in his pregame speech. Especially if he has a team that is undermanned at least on a paper and is a clear underdog, but strongly believes that his team is good enough to win this game. But he’s got to get his players to believe that. And tell them, “that we’re playing a great team today they’re going to hit us hard and we’re going to take some big shots and give up some plays and points. But if we stay together and stay united and do what we’ve been working on all year and been practicing, they won’t beat us, because we’re better than them.”

I believe this would be a great song for a high school team that perhaps is having a cinderella season and hasn’t won in a long time and they’re playing a great team that wins a lot every year. And the same thing with a college football program and even an NFL team. And because this is Veterans Day how about taking it up to the battlefield and in combat. That lets say an Army Captain could use to tell him men and tell them that, “we might be undermanned and they may have more ammo, but we’re better than the enemy and are better trained and if we stay together, we’ll not only survive, but we’ll win.” I believe that is the message of Johnny Cash’s “I Won’t Back Down.” That you can push him around and knock him around, but you can’t knock him out, because he’ll just keep coming at you.


Monday, November 9, 2015

Dennis Prager: Blog: Feminization of America Is Bad For The World

Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager: Blog: Feminization of America Is Bad For The World

Warning! This piece might come as sexist and homophobic for all of you oversensitive readers.

Dennis Prager, has a habit of being partially right. He’ll make an intelligent statement about a big subject, but then will screw up his argument with a whole bunch of stuff that really doesn’t have anything to do with the original point that was making and is simply false.

Having a country of essentially three-hundred twenty-million straight women, or straight women and openly gay men, would be bad for America. It would screw up guys fall weekends, because there would be no more football. And that is just one example. Straight women, would have a hell of a time finding dates, because they would be surrounded by straight women and gay men. If America came under attack, no one would be left to defend the country. Because all the real men in the country would have been deported and freezing their asses off in Russia, standing in bread lines for Vladimir Putin. All of the new unemployment in America with all of those football players out-of-work, because no one is watching football anymore. Twenty-four hours a day of soap operas, cooking shows, celebrity TV and so-called reality TV.

The Far-Left in America, has this idea that all Caucasians, who don’t share their politics, are bigots and that Caucasian men are all sexist and that even masculinity is sexist, because it isn’t feminine. This is the last faction of the country you want running the country. Well one of the last. They’re running tied right now with the Christian-Right that would turn America into the West’s version of Saudi Arabia. Where it would essentially be illegal to be feminine in public and where women would become servants of their men. What the New-Left in America will probably never understand is that men and women are certainly different. We look different, we think different, men tend to be bigger, stronger and taller than women. We even think different and tend to be interested in different things. Well, at least straight men compared with straight women. None of these differences are bad, they’re just different.

I have some advice for the New-Left in America. Free of charge, because I doubt they’ll take it. But if you don’t like masculine straight men, don’t hang out with them and don’t vote for them. Move to San Francisco, or Manhattan, where you might have better luck of finding a peanut farmer than a straight man. Guys are guys and girls are girls and there’s nothing wrong with that. Were divided almost completely down the middle in the country where both sides are able to influence the country and make themselves known and felt. Even our gay population is divided evenly among men and women. If Scandinavia is your ideal part of the world where you think everything is perfect there, try living over there for a while and see what it is like to live there. But as long as you’re in America try dealing with life as an American and our culture that combines both masculinity and femininity, or work to change the culture.


Saturday, November 7, 2015

The Baltimore Movie Trailer Park: Airport 1970: The Start of The 1970s Disaster Movie Genre

The Baltimore Movie Trailer Park: Airport 1970: The Start of The 1970s Disaster Movie Genre

The 1970s, was a crazy and very entertaining even with how gloomy and depressing a decade that it was. With the bad economy, Vietnam War, high crime rate and everything else. But one of few great things about that decade was the entertainment. Especially movies and TV. Terrorism was on the mind of millions of Americans, as well as what could happen if something went wrong with an airplane when it was in air and thousands of miles from a nearest airport. Soap operas were also very popular and common in the decade, as well as movies that combined several different genres and stories in one movie. Airport, isn’t a pure action movie, or action/thriller, or action/drama, or action/comedy, or soap opera. It was all of those things into one movie. With a great cast and a great director.

Airport, is essentially about what good decent intelligent people, who all have their own issues and problems outside of work, do when they’re all under extreme pressure. Like having a passenger on the plane who is so desperate, who is out-of-work and can’t hold onto a job, who needs money and believes there is nothing left he can do, but have himself killed so his wife can collect his life insurance. Van Heflin, plays a man named Guerro who manages to get a bomb on the plane. The General Manager (played by Burt Lancaster) of the airport, is no longer in love with his wife and as a result is now a workaholic who doesn’t want to go home at night, because he’s happier working all the time. Jacqueline Bisset, plays a head stewardess who is having an affair with a married pilot and is now pregnant with his baby. Dean Martin, plays the father of the head stewardess’s baby and his married and having an affair with that stewardess.

You have all of these decent intelligent people who are all very good at their jobs, but are all under enormous pressure and are all now dealing with an airplane that has a bomb on board by a man who is suicidal and wants to set the bomb off and the bomb does go. Off so you have all of these people who are already under enormous pressure now having to deal with a potential airplane disaster in horrible Upper Midwest weather in the winter, leaving from Chicago. And now also have to deal with the possibility of hundreds of people dying in a horrible plane crash. This is a very entertaining and very funny movie. Perhaps not so believable with all the side soap operas in it. But even great soap operas tend not to be very believable. And it is very entertaining and pretty funny movie with very funny people in it and a an all-star cast.


Thursday, November 5, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Colin Dueck: Donald Trump, American Nationalist: Panderer of The United States

The Donald
The National Interest: Opinion: Colin Dueck: Donald Trump, American Nationalist: Panderer of The United States

When you look at Donald Trump, you have to know that he's a businessman and a salesman. As well as the biggest narcissist perhaps in the history of the world. Who does these little things like running for president simply to bring attention himself. Whose has multiple positions on perhaps every single major political issue going back thirty years since he first got involved in American politics from the outside. You shouldn't take anything he says with a grain of salt,  years supply of salt. He goes where he believes the popular support is. He really should be running for both Narcissist and Faddist of the United States and run both offices at the same time. (He could afford to do it) Because who would beat him, or even challenge him. He's lucky politicians and candidates aren't required to take truth serum before they say anything, because he wouldn't be able to run for anything, other than maybe his own positions.

The Donald's latest venture and real reality show, Who Wants Donald Trump For President, is just an attempt to speak to so-called Middle-America Americans, Richard Nixon's Silent Majority. People who feel left behind from the New America. Anglo-Saxon Protestants primarily and to show them that he's with them. Even though he's nothing like them as far as where he's from, where he lives, the type of lifestyle he lives, the fact that he's not very religious at all. Maybe The Donald will get a new book, a documentary, perhaps an actual reality show out of this so-called presidential campaign. But he won't get the presidency, because the current group of Americans that he's pandering to are not enough for him to win the presidency. A Republican can't kiss off Latinos and women and hope to have any shot at winning the White House. So this is not about him being president.


Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Prager U: Greg Gutfeld: "Left But Really Right": Calling Bullshit on Greg Gutfeld

Prager U: Greg Gutfeld: "Left But Really Right": Calling Bullshit on Greg Gutfeld

I don’t have a nice way of putting this other to say that Greg Gutfeld has an interesting and even good sense of humor. And is entitled to his liberal First Amendment rights like all other Americans. All of these collectivist socialist values that comes from Europe, that he was talking about, are exactly that. Collectivist socialist values. Illiberal in most cases, because Liberals believe in liberty, which is where the word comes from and Socialists believe in the collective and seeing to it that you have a big enough government to see to it that no one has to go without.

To suggest that people who are successful regardless of political ideology, live by conservative values, would be like saying anyone who is against racism, believes in free speech and expression even as it relates to pornography and offensive speech , things that the liberal ACLU defends in court everyday, must be Liberals. And if you believe that gays should be treated equally under law, you must be a Liberal. Right? Am I at least in the ballpark on this one? If this is case than most Americans are Liberals, because we tend to believe in these things and oppose discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion and even sexuality. If same-sex marriage was on a national ballot, it would probably win 60-40 now. Does that mean 3-5 Americans are liberal? I could argue that we are. But same-sex marriage is just an example of that.

You don’t have to be a Conservative, or even live by conservative values to be successful in America. If you believe in personal freedom constitutional rights, individual rights, civil liberties, equal justice under law, values that tend to unite Americans, are you a Liberal? No, because these are simply Americans values that tend to bring Americans together. Instead of trying to divide a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people between Right and Left. And doing it in a way that suggests Liberals are simply about collectivism and just another way of say Marxist. And people who believe in productivity, hard work, education, responsibility, fiscal responsibility, etc, aren’t conservative necessarily who live by the conservative ideology. They’re just good productive Americans who in many cases also believe personal freedom, including privacy, equal justice and rights under law, a very liberal freedom of speech, etc.

If you’re going to accuse people of being liberal and followers of liberalism, which Liberals tend to take as complement, by the way and not as an insult, so I don’t know what Greg Gutfeld is getting out of here other than maybe some laughs (perhaps at himself_ and some new followers people who already agree with him, at least have the decency to know what the hell you’re talking about. Instead of going off bogus (to be kind) liberal stereotypes from the 1950s and 1960s. Join the rest of the country in the 21st Century where many Americans now embrace so-called liberal values, that I’ve already laid out, as well as Greg Gutfeld’s so-called conservative values. If the Right had to talk about actual Liberals and not just people who call themselves Liberals , because they don’t have the balls to be called Socialists, or are called Liberals in by the mainstream media, or hyper-partisan rightists (such as Greg Gutfeld) the Right would lose all the time if they had to debate Liberals and liberalism for what we really are. Because Americans now tend to embrace these so-called liberal values.


Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Keppler Speakers: Senator Bob Dole Shares Great Political Wit

Good Job Bob
Keppler Speakers: Senator Bob Dole Shares Great Political Wit

Bob Dole, follows the oldest rule in the book, that he perhaps wrote himself, or had his good friend Strom Thurmond right for him. “Never take yourself too seriously.” The best rule for a politician, or any special interest servant, I mean public servant. Because there’s so much nonsense that goes on in Washington. Most people judge their finances in the thousands. Companies, in the thousands and millions, state and local government’s in the millions and to a certain extent hundreds of millions.

Not The U.S. Government in Washington. Millions of dollars to someone in Congress, is like a slam dunk to Lebron James. No big deal, something that he does several times in each game. The U.S. Government, deal in billions, hundreds of billions and even trillions everyday. There’s so much money for them to manage and the fact that Congress, anyway represents the people who send them there and are only as good as them, there’s no way they can manage all of it themselves.

I think politicians have to laugh at themselves, otherwise they would go crazy and end up back at the nut house they escaped from to run for Congress and get reelected in the first place. You’re always in the public eye even when you’re making your back room deals and voting on things you don’t want anyone especially your constituents to know about, because leaks get out. And people who work for you no longer feel they can hide what their boss is doing.

A public servant, is truly that at least in the sense that they work in the public, even if they work for their lobbyists. And in today’s internet age there’s only so much that they can hide from the public. So when they do crooked and stupid things, it gets out and they get reelected anyway, because their constituents are blind and didn’t bother to pay attention to what their senator, or representative was doing, or perhaps were drunk when they went into the voting booth. And voted for the wrong person by accident.

I believe what Bob Dole is talking about here is not only all the politicians in America that have had a great wit, but also making fun of a lot of things that he saw while he was in Congress. All the late night sessions because senators didn’t want to vote on things that their constituents would find out about. So they would vote when they thought the whole country was asleep. And even if Alaska and Hawaii found out about it, the thinking there was that they were too far away to do anything about it. There’s so much nonsense that goes on in Washington, Congress and the U.S. Government as a whole. You almost have to laugh at it, or deal with a horrible case of depression. And perhaps take up alcoholism to get through it.


June-Marie Liddy: Folding Denim Jeans in Jeans in Boots

Source: June-Marie Liddy-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

June-Marie Liddy and I follow each other on Google+. I’ve followed her on YouTube for a guess a year or so. We haven’t met in person yet but, I’m pretty familiar with her online. And she does these videos about household chores and what she does around the house. And does them in tight denim jeans in boots and looks great in them as she’s doing this work. And more than willing to express herself physically as she’s doing this work. And gives guys a lot of rides (if you are familiar with the phrase) and a pleasure to check  out. You can be sexy and substantive at the same time. You don't have to look like a nerd who eats TV dinners at home while reading a book every Friday night by yourself, or with another nerd you're involved with. While working at the library, or some laboratory everyday during the week. Or look like a hooker who asks children for help in spelling the simplest basic words. You can have real substance and style at the same time, JM Liddy proves that.
June-Marie Liddy: Folding Denim Jeans in Jeans in Boots

Monday, November 2, 2015

Senator Rand Paul: Senator Paul Speaks Out Against Budget Agreement: 10/29/15

Senator Rand Paul: Senator Paul Speaks Out Against Budget Agreement: 10/29/15

I actually agree with a lot of what Senator Paul said here. But he gets a couple of things wrong here. The new spending in the Bipartisan Budget Act that is for defense and domestic programs is paid for by adjusting payments in Disability Insurance. As far as the Guns and Butter, that is what happens when you have a divided government where you have one party that always wants to increase defense spending and cut domestic spending, even infrastructure, which is generally a good pathway to reelection and the other party always looking to cut defense and increase domestic spending. So maybe we should look at the voters who send these people to Congress instead of the Congresspeople who just represent the people who send them there.

We do have a national debt of around twenty-trillion-dollars and I would love to bring that down and you can only do that through stronger economic growth, higher employment, with raising wages and deficit reduction. As long as you have a deficit, the debt will always go up. Which is how you get a national debt through annual deficits that are always adding to the debt. And again, divided government with a military oriented national security party that believes the best interest of corporations are always the best interest of the country. And a party that is more interested in domestic and economic spending, that tends to believe that the best interest of labor unions is always the best interest of the country.

So unless you have people from both parties who say, “we need to cut the deficit and I’m willing to give some of my priorities in a smart intelligent way, but I’m not going to hurt them, if you do the same thing with your priorities”, we’re always going to have guns and butter. Republicans, will get more military spending. Democrats, get more domestic spending like in the areas of infrastructure, education, medical research. And at best you’ll get a bipartisan agreement to fund and not borrow the money to pay for each parties priorities, but you won’t have a real agreement to deal with the long-term debt and budget deficit. That is how Congress works especially when the margins are fairly close both in the House and Senate and the President is from the other party that is not leading Congress. And this is also how you avoid government shutdowns and defaulting on the national debt. Which would have been the worst possible outcome.


Saturday, October 31, 2015

University of California Television: An Evening with Christopher Buckley 2009: Interviewed by Dean Nelson

Great Political Humorist
University of California Television: An Evening with Christopher Buckley 2009: Interviewed by Dean Nelson

I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We do now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. USA Today, in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.

Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful women, even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States, is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive women with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.

As I’ve blogged before you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.

U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job. That they’re a lot less qualified for.

But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addicted. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.

We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt, because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.

The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you and as the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.