The Federalist: 'Remember The Moral Majority? Russell Moore Says It’s Over'

Source:The Federalist- A church located in the heartland of America?

Source:The New Democrat

"At this moment, the next Saint Augustine may be marching at the head of a Gay Pride Day parade and the future Mother Teresa might be operating a Planned Parenthood clinic. It’s for this reason that Dr. Russell Moore encourages Christians to see their political opponents not as enemies but “as future brothers and sisters.”

On today’s episode of the Federalist Radio Hour, this President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission discuss his new book, “Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel.” He at once declares the end of the Moral Majority and his new reasons for hope."

From The Federalist

"As the culture changes all around us, it is no longer possible to pretend that we are a Moral Majority. That may be bad news for America, but it can be good news for the church. What’s needed now, in shifting times, is neither a doubling-down on the status quo nor a pullback into isolation. Instead, we need a church that speaks to social and political issues with a bigger vision in mind: that of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christianity seems increasingly strange, and even subversive, to our culture, we have the opportunity to reclaim the freakishness of the gospel, which is what gives it it’s power in the first place.

We seek the kingdom of God, before everything else. We connect that kingdom agenda to the culture around us, both by speaking it to the world and by showing it in our churches. As we do so, we remember our mission to oppose demons, not to demonize opponents. As we advocate for human dignity, for religious liberty, for family stability, let’s do so as those with a prophetic word that turns everything upside down.

The signs of the times tell us we are in for days our parents and grandparents never knew. But that’s no call for panic or surrender or outrage. Jesus is alive. Let’s act like it. Let’s follow him, onward to the future."

Source:B&H Publishing Group- with Dr. Russell Moore.

From B&H Publishing Group

I hope the Moral Majority as a movement at least in the sense that it has any real political power outside of the Republican Party is essentially over and done with. It is a movement that still sees America in the year 1955 even as the country is now sixty-years old and has simply developed and moved on.

Americans, tend to like their freedom and to be able to live their own lives. And generally now especially with younger Americans even in the Bible Belt, don’t have issues with things like multiculturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, homosexuality, women working out of the home, pre-marital sex, domestic partnerships, (that even produce children) immigration, gambling pornography and I could go on, but I’ll save you from that.

But the issues that the Moral Majority has fought against at least since the 1960s and have even wanted government to get involved in and regulating with how consenting adults live their own lives, are now mainstream with Americans who aren't old enough to be Baby Boomers and in many cases are Baby Boomers. Americans tend to progress and move on. And tend not to get stuck in some time where some Americans view that period as their Utopia.

What you may see now with whatever is left of the Moral Majority is a movement that tries to bring people to them. But leaves government out and tells people this is the best and moral way to live based on their religious values. And try to get people to adopt their way of life and lifestyle. But stop trying to get government to pass their values into law. And to educate people about what their movement is about.

I think the Christian-Right movement are even realizing now and Russell Moore is an example of this that they no longer have much support outside of the Republican Party and have even lost support inside of the Republican Party. With the growing conservative libertarian movement that is made up of a lot of young Republicans now.

The Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: The Republican Cuckservatives

Source: Eagle Forum: Take Back America From Who?

Source:The New Democrat

So I guess cuckservative, whatever that is, sounds to me more like some type of sexual insult, perhaps a shot at gay men, or something, but I guess this is the new term that Tea Party Neoconservatives use for Republicans who aren’t as far to the right as they are. I know, a cukservative is a shot from the Christian-Right against gay Republicans. Even though gays tend to agree with Republicans on economic policy. But what is a Republican, really. I know the answer to this, so I’ll share what it is. A Republican, is someone who believes in a republican form of government. And in a federal republican liberal democratic country like America, that means checks and balances and a country that is governed by a constitution. Not by religious institutions, or religious groups, regardless of religion.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, that Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer calls the modern John Birch Society, is not new to the Republican Party. But what makes them different from the John Birhcer’s of the 1960s lets say, is that the Tea Party has real power and numbers. Even in Ronald Reagan’s time, the John Birchers were seen as a fringe group and people who lived in their own world and saw things that others didn’t see. And a lot of that had to do because they were on a different political planet. But post-Reagan and even the Bush’s, the Republican establishment is pretty weak. The GOP has a leadership void that we haven’t seen in either major political party since the Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s, when they were seen as way out in left field. Now Republicans are seen as way out in right field.

Back in the day, Republicans were Republicans. They believed in a strong vibrant private sector with a strong private enterprise capitalist economy. That government closest to home is the best government. That deficit spending is bad spending and that even included the defense budget, not including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And speaking of defense, they believed in a strong national defense of course. But that was mostly about the national security of the United States, not being strong enough to police the world by ourselves.

Back in the day, women and even racial and ethnic minorities voted Republican. Why? Because Republicans didn’t push the social issues for the most part. It was Barry Goldwater who is famous for saying that a Conservative is someone who wants big government out of our wallets, homes, schools and boardrooms. But I guess Senator Goldwater would be called a RINO today, because he wasn’t with the Christian-Right on most issues. Women and minorities at one point voted for Republicans, because they didn’t make it harder for minorities to vote with bogus voter ID laws, or bash immigration and call non-Europeans immigrants Un-American and accuse them of coming to America so they can be on welfare and questioning their work-ethic and all of that. It was Ron Reagan that called America an immigrant nation.

I’m not a Republican obviously as a Liberal Democrat, but the people who I just described as Republicans the Barry Goldwater’s, Ron Reagan’s, Ron Paul’s even, are. The RINOS, are people who are only Republicans in Name Only, because we no longer have a Whig Party, or a Confederate Party, or a Christian Conservative Party, a Neoconservative Party. Where they would be more comfortable politically being a part of. Today’s RINOS, are only Republicans, because that is the only major political in America that would take them, instead of institutionalizing them, or trying to deport them. Today’s GOP is suffering from a leadership vacuüm. Which is what tends to happen to political parties when they spend a long time outside of the White House and when their last presidency didn’t go very well. Which is very similar to what happen to Democrats in the 1970s and 80s.

Keith Hughes: The Dred Scott Decision Explained: US History Review

Source:Keith Hughes.

Source:The New Democrat

The Dred Scott decision is one of the worst decisions in American history. The fact that African-Americans weren’t considered American citizens at the time, even if they lived in free states meaning that whether you were African, or Caucasian you were free and couldn’t be held as a slave and that under the U.S. Constitution everyone born inside of the United States, or has at least one parent born in the United States, was ridiculous. A simple bad reading of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution at best and racist at worst from the U.S. Justices’s who ruled in that direction. And of course this decision was even worst for Dred Scott who would have to live as a slave.

But even with horrible rulings and decisions comes some positive features. It meant the United States was going to have to decide whether it was going to be a free country. Meaning all Americans are free, or whether it was going to be a half free, half slaved country. If you’re of European descent, you were free and couldn’t be a slave. If you were of African descent, you most likely would be a slave. Had the Confederate States somehow managed to win the American Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was kind of like that last blow that ignited the American Civil War. Putting the North against the South to decide what type of country America was going to be. Or would we end up splitting similar to what happened to Germany, Korea and Vietnam. A free North and a half free half slaved South.

The American Civil War, was bad for lots of reasons. Because of all the destruction that came to America. Leaving the North to be fairly prosperous which it has remained for the most part ever since. And the South to be fairly poor and needing so much Federal aid to try to rebuild themselves. And something the South, if you look at South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, they’ve never fully recovered from the Civil War. Plus all the innocent lives that were lost on both sides. But the Civil War did lead to the abolishment of slavery in America. And America has only made progress in the areas of race relations, equal rights and civil rights ever since.

The Associated Press: ‘Opening of The Senate Watergate Committee (1973)’

Source:The Associated Press- U.S. Senator Sam Ervin: Democrat, North Carolina: Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd U.S. Congress)

Source:The New Democrat

“(17 May 1973) Scenes from the United States Senate hearing into the Watergate Affair. Senate Watergate Committee chairman, Sam Ervin makes a statement…

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Senator Sam Ervin: Democrat, North Carolina: Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd U.S. Congress)

From The Associated Press

Without the Senate Watergate Committee, President Nixon doesn’t get impeached at least in that Congress and when he did in 1974. Because of how they and the special prosecutors office were able to get people in the Nixon White House and the Nixon reelection campaign to talk about what they knew about Watergate and the coverup, that is how all of this information came out. To the point that Congressional Republicans both in the House and Senate could no longer support President Nixon.

John Dean, in great detail laid out for the committee under threat of prosecution of course, exactly how the Watergate coverup was conducted. Since he was essentially in charge of managing the coverup.

White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, also played a big role in that. But Dean, was essentially the desk sergeant of this case. And managed all the information that came in, as well as what to do with the information. And what people involved in the Watergate break in either needed to keep quiet, or what kind of legal defense that they needed.

But the disclosure of the taping system, is really what ended the Nixon Administration. Without that disclosure, President Nixon probably survives Watergate. He would’ve been a lot weaker and had a hard time dealing with a Democratic Congress that would’ve expanded their majorities in the House and Senate in 1974 whether he was still President, or not. But he still would’ve been President of the United States for the last two and a half years of his presidency.

And perhaps President Nixon would’ve achieved a few other foreign policy success’. But the taping system is what nailed the President. Where he’s caught on tape ordering the coverup. And the Senate Watergate Committee brought that to the public.

Gustavo Lagos: 'The Best of Ann Coulter'

Source:Gustavo Lagos-

Source:The New Democrat

I think Alan Colmes had the best line in this video. When he said that he thinks that he has Ann Coulter all wrong. His point was that he now sees her as just a political satirist who says all sorts of insulting if not hateful and certainly ignorant things to make people on the Far-Right look bad. I see her as Far-Right and not as a Center-Right Conservative for obvious reasons. Conservatives, tend to be a lot more intelligent and at least try to back up what they say with actual facts. With Ann Coulter, she speaks her mind and is provocative intentionally and then she tries to explain what she means by that later, if she can. The way I would put Ann Coulter, is that she’s a political satirist at best and a pretty good one at times.

If Coulter is not a satirist, she’s quite frankly a bullshit artist. Someone who speaks out of their ass on a regular basis. Either intentionally to sell her books and columns, or because like most assholes, she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. But because her views are so outer space and light years away from Earth, people are interested in her, because of how different she is. Coulter to me is like a rich women’s Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, very entertaining and at times a pretty good political analyst and satirist, but not someone you want filling out your taxes for you, or perhaps watching your kids, let alone holding a responsible job in public office. And Ann Coulter, is slightly better than that. Because I wouldn’t want her to watch my kids, but if she did my taxes she could probably find a few tax breaks for me.

Some entertainers and commentators who weren’t very popular in their time, but lets say a generation later they look great. Because they fit that era and then look brilliant and become pop culture heroes and celebrities and so-forth. Have books and perhaps even movies made about them. Lenny Bruce, who was a comedian in the 1950s and was probably twenty-years ahead of his time, because he used a lot of adult language and talked about adult subjects in his act. With Coulter the obvious is true. But she’s not twenty years before her time. More like 80-100. When gays were still locked in the closet. Before it was common for women to work outside of the home. Before women could even vote and I could go down the line.

Ann Coulter, whether she actually believes in what she says and doesn’t have this moment, “gee, did I really just say that? I’m not sure I believe my own words.”, or she’s really as dumb as a brick and makes and makes both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann look like genius’, knows how to get people to think and talk. And generally it is a lot of negative things about her. But whether this is intentional or not on her part, she’s a hell of a businesswomen. She knows how to sell her books and columns and the more attention she gets about them and generally outside of so-called Fox News and Far-Right publications and even some Center-Right publications, it’s generally bad publicity. But publicity good and bad sells her books and columns. Is she a political satirist, or bullshit artist? If only I was a mind-reader.
Gustavo Lagos: The Best of Ann Coulter

Bill Whittle: Defense Debacle: Should Conservatives Cut Military Spending?

Source:Bill Whittle.

Source:The New Democrat

I think its obvious the United States defense budget should be and has been on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. And it has been since the 2011 Budget Control Act, that was negotiated between Congress and the Obama Administration, that was part of the debt ceiling agreement from that year. And the question for me at least and many others both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, is to make savings in the defense budget. I think savings is the key word here, since our military is doing things for other countries that those countries could do for themselves. And that there things in America where our military perhaps should be doing more. Like in Central America, to use as an example.

And when I’m talking about savings in the defense budget, I look at developed countries, large developed countries, that no longer need us to defend them. Like in Europe, especially in Germany and then go to Saudi Arabia and then move over to Japan and Korea. We’re already making savings in Iraq and Afghanistan, by turning over the defense and the main responsibility for those countries defense to Iraq and Afghanistan. But we’re no longer going to have to spend, borrow really, a hundred-billion dollars a year to defend the Iraq. A country of thirty-million people that is roughly the size of California physically.

So when I’m looking at making savings in the U.S. defense budget as a Liberal Hawk lets say, I’m looking at areas where we don’t need to spending any money at all. Like defending developed countries, or developing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, who both have emerging militaries that are ready to defend their own countries. The Iraqi Military right now is fighting and defeating ISIS in their own country. And speaking of ISIS, that is not where we should cutting the budget. But instead investing whatever we need to, to make sure that Iraq and Syria, don’t become what Afghanistan was for the Taliban in the 1990s. Their own terrorist state.

America, should stop defending countries that can defend themselves. We should be helping countries that want to be our partners, but are currently poor and aren’t available to completely defend themselves. I believe Columbia would fall into that category. Perhaps Mexico as well at least when it comes to corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan, still need us to assist them and give them resources to defend themselves. That their military and law enforcement agencies can use for their own defense. And of course ISIS, we need to be a major player there from the air. With our partners on the ground from NATO and the Arab League, taking it to ISIS on the ground to defeat them. And if we need to aid our partners on the ground in that war, we should be doing that.

So when it comes to the defense budget. Sure, eliminate fighters jets that don’t either work, or are no longer needed. Eliminate bases that we no longer need. But if we want to make real savings in the defense budget to cut our debt and deficit, look to developing countries that we’re responsible for defending. Stop going to war on the credit card. Especially wars that we don’t have to fight. Require Congress and the Administration to pay for all of our military operations. But don’t do these things and not still do what America needs to defend itself. Don’t cut the military budget simply because it’s so big and so much bigger than any other military budget in the world. And invest in the military where we need new resources to keep our country as safe as possible. Like dealing with ISIS and making sure our neighbors are doing their part to keep terrorism out of the neighborhood.

Patrick J. Buchanan: The GOP’s Iran Dilemma

Source:Buchanan Brigade.

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan, who seems to be getting more sane and intelligent as he gets older. The way I would put it, is that President Obama and perhaps intentionally, has boxed the Republican Party, especially Congress in. House and Senate Republicans, could try to kill the Iranian Nuclear Deal and lose anyway. Because there’s no way that they’ll be able to override a presidential veto on this. With only a handful of Democratic Representatives and Senators voting with Republicans on this. Or lets say it starts snowing in Houston, Texas tomorrow, keep in mind it’s still July and they did override President Obama’s veto on this and Europe, Russia and China who are all on board on this agreement, end up getting the credit for the Islamic Republic of Iran from not obtaining nuclear weapons. Even though the United States did most of the work on the deal.

If somehow Congressional Republicans actually did read the deal and figure out that Iran will be under strict observation and have international weapons inspectors on the ground in Iran, making sure that they are either complying, or reporting where the Islamic Republic is coming up short and that America can reimposed sanctions and put military options back on the table against Iran and actually decide to vote for the deal, then Republican Representatives and Senators will have to explain to their constituents why they voted to support President Obama. Someone who a lot of Republicans at least in the active base of the party consider to be an illegitimate president and perhaps even an illegal alien from Kenya. Whose legally not eligible to be President of the United States. And simply serving his Socialist-Muslim brothers and sisters in Iran.

Every time Congressional Republicans go on the official record supporting President Obama on anything major, they risk trouble at home and being primaried at home. Meaning someone from the Far-Right flank of the party, who normally couldn’t get elected to anything outside of the Bible Belt that isn’t gerrymandered, challenging a mainstream Republican in Congress in the next election. Politically, I believe the only option that Congressional Republicans have here, is to vote against the deal, watch it go through after President Obama successful vetoes it and hold oversight hearings on it in the House and Senate to see how its working. But one of the brilliances of this deal with Iran is the politics of it. Republicans, could vote for it and risk problems in their own party. Vote against it and watch President Obama and Secretary John Kerry, Europe, Russia and China take credit for it.

Mysteries & Scandals: Bugsy Siegel

Source:IMDB- Mysteries & Scandals.

Source:The New Democrat

“Susan Berman (author), Ralph Saierno (NYC mob investigator), Frank Ragano (lawyer), Frank Wright (curator Vegas), W.R. Wilkerson III (author), Rose Marie (entertainer) and Michael Druxman (author) are a few of the people interviewed about the dream that would cost Bugsy Siegel his life.

The 30s and 40s were full of famous gangsters that remain some sort of cult figures today and Bugsy is one of them. He pretty much stole the idea of a casino in the desert and it cost him his life. The story of Bugsy was turned into a very good movie with Warren Beatty and it’s pretty interesting to see how badly gambling in Vegas tanked. The interviews here are extremely entertaining and they certainly give you a detailed idea of what was going down and what led up to Bugsy murder…

From IMDB

I saw the movie Bugsy a few nights ago for like the hundredth time, or whatever. It is one of my favorite movies and what I get from Warren Beatty as Bugsy and from what I know about Bugsy, is that Beatty did a great job playing Bugsy.

And had Bugsy decided to give up the mob, which is almost impossible to do, but let’s believe in Santa Clause for a second and say he was able to do that, Hollywood would’ve been perfect for him. As either an actor himself, playing gangsters, but with his personality and humor, he would’ve been able to do other things.

There’s this saying that the friendship between Ben Siegel and actor George Raft, is that Benny, was a mobster that wanted to be an actor. And George, was an actor that wanted to be a mobster. Which is why George Raft got so many gangster roles as an actor and actually got tired of that and wanted to do something else.

And if you see The George Raft Story, a movie about the life of guess who, that movie makes it clear that Raft was tired of playing gangsters and wanted to do other things. Ben Siegel as an actor, probably would’ve had a similar career as his buddy George Raft. I mean, he was a Jewish gangster and one of the most successful ones.

I believe the legacy, or at least the positive side of Ben Siegel’s legacy is what we see as Las Vegas today. Before Ben Siegel, Las Vegas was essentially a hick Southwestern town of about ten-thousand people or so.

Today, Las Vegas is a town of over five-hundred and eighty-thousand people and an area of about two-million people. It is one of the biggest and most economically successful cities in America today. And a lot of that has to with the casino and gambling industry.

Siegel, didn’t put all that together himself. But he had the vision that others used to build Las Vegas in what it could be. A great big city where people from all over the country and even world, could go to and have a great time. All of that got started with Ben Siegel.

Michael Jacques: ‘Phyllis Schlafly Who killed American family Eagle Forum’

Source:Michael Jacques- Phyllis Schlafly is the founder of the Eagle Forum.

Source:The New Democrat 

“If nothing in Hayek, Mises, Rothbard or Rand supports the abolition, redefinition, or privatization of marriage, then where did those ideas come from? The answer is that they came from writers on the left — most significantly, from the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and published in 1848.

To be sure, Marx did not originate the notion of undermining the family, which had been introduced by the utopian socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, but he eagerly endorsed and propagated it. After Marx’s death, his partner Friedrich Engels wrote a whole book elaborating on Marx’s anti-family ideas.

A major part of the Communist Manifesto is its unrelenting attack on the so-called “bourgeois family” which Marx believed was responsible for the inequality he despised. If communism was to succeed, he wrote, the bourgeois family had to be done away with.

The bourgeois family is the Marxist term for what modern liberals call the “Ozzie and Harriet” or “nuclear” family. It means a husband and wife who are legally married to each other, using the husband’s name, with the husband as provider and authority figure, and the wife as nurturing homemaker, and with both parents raising and educating their own children within the household.

Marx hated the bourgeois family, not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.” 

From Michael Jacques 

“Political junkies will remember how former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was being groomed to run for president in 2012 before he made his foolish statement that the next president should “call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Americans do not want a leader who is unable or unwilling to articulate and lead on important social issues.

Four years after the Daniels misstep, many have failed to learn that lesson. The New York Times has proclaimed the “libertarian moment” has arrived, by which they seem to mean libertarian ideas about marriage and the family.

We hear people say the libertarian view is to “get the government out of marriage.” But where did that slogan come from? There is simply no basis for that notion in the works of classic libertarian writers.” 

Source:Eagle Forum- Phyllis Schlafly is the founder of the Eagle Forum.

From the Eagle Forum

Pro-family, to the Traditional Values Coalition and TVC Warriors (let’s call them) that Phyllis Schlafly, is certainly one of, idea of pro-family policies, has to do with this 1950s, or 1940s lifestyle of what they think America is.

The American Family to the Christian-Right is two parents, man and woman, father and mother. Anything outside of that is seen to them as immoral and even Un-American. You could argue that being against abortion is pro-family. Because you’re saying you are in favor of preventing fetus’s from being terminated and therefore more babies would be born. Because these Un-aborted fetus’s would end up becoming babies. I disagree with this, being pro-choice on abortion. But you could make a credible argument on that.

But this idea that homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage to be more specific, is Un-American, or anti-family and therefore needs to be eliminated even through big government force, which some on the Far-Right, perhaps even Phyllis Schalfly herself in the name of protecting American families, is stupid. There’s no real evidence backing that up. Which is why an overwhelming majority of Americans now don’t have a problem with gays simply because they are gay. And tend to judge gays as people.

Even as much as the Christian-Right has dominated the Republican Party and to a certain extent American politics with some of the Republican Congress’s we’ve had the last twenty years, their influence on American politics now is plummeting. As more Americans, especially young Americans, are more liberal, libertarian and tolerant, than even their parents.

Since the late 1970s or so and you could probably go back to 1974-75, lets say post-Richard Nixon and after the Roe V Wade decision, the Christian-Right, has been a major force in the Republican Party. Coming over from the Democratic Party as the former Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party.

Since the late 1970s with the Far-Right in America stepping up to take on the liberalization of the 1960s and the Cultural Revolution and all the cultural freedom that came from that era, has had a major influence on the Republican Party and fighting the Culture War. Taking on issues like homosexuality, abortion, pornography, Hollywood in general, Women’s Liberation, multiculturalism in general, which served the Republican Party well in the elections that they’ve won in the last forty years. But they’re now paying a price as America has moved left and become more liberal, libertarian and tolerant on social issues and cultural in general.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge- Professor Milton Friedman: 'The High & The Mighty'

Source:Uncommon Knowledge- Professor Milton Friedman, talking to Perter Robison about the War On Drugs.

Source:The New Democrat

"This interview was filmed on December 21, 2000. America has spent three decades and hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a national war on drugs. Has the war on drugs been an effective way of dealing with America's drug problem or does it cause more harm than good? How should we weigh the moral and utilitarian arguments for and against the war on drugs; in other words, do we need to intensify the war on drugs or is it time to declare a cease fire?"

From Uncommon Knowledge

I’ve made this point more times than I can count now and generally I’m pretty good with numbers, but when you try to prevent someone from doing something dangerous, or try to prevent someone from doing anything and say, “don’t do this, or else” and the, or else is something awful like jail, that person, especially if they think they can get away with it, or are addicted and don’t care and think the risk is worth it, is going to do what they want with themselves anyway. You don’t correct improper behavior, or dangerous behavior when just one person is involved, by saying don’t do this, or we’ll make things even worst for you then what you’re doing now and send you to jail.

Jail and prison, is worst for people than illegal narcotics. Because of the stress, the risks to people’s personal safety and even their lives. The slop that they have to eat, that is supposed to be food. All the down time and solitary that leads to human waste. I mean, I rather be a cocaine addict and be far gone from reality, then experience jail, or prison completely sober. What you want to do instead, is instead of making people’s lives even worst than they currently are, you encourage people to improve their behavior. Show them why they shouldn’t be taking any cocaine, meth, or heroin. Don’t criminalize things that have the same, or similar side-effects as alcohol. Which means legalizing marijuana.

One of the tragedies of the so-called War on Drugs, which again isn’t a real war, but its made criminals of people, who are only guilty for what they’ve done to themselves. We spend billions of dollars every year as taxpayers punishing people for what they’ve done to themselves. When what we could’ve been doing is actually helping people get off of those drugs and build their life into something that is positive and productive. Where they don’t want anything to do with cocaine, heroin, or meth. Imagine if we were doing this 45 years ago, instead of locking people up, because they like cocaine. So we can say we’re “tough on crime”, whatever the hell that means. How many lives would we of saved from the War on Drugs as a result?

Bill Boggs TV: John Dean Interview With Bill Boggs

Source:Bill Boggs TV.

Source:The New Democrat

You could perhaps blame John Dean for a lot of things, but you can also give give him credit for turning his life around. Here’s a young man, who becomes Chief Counsel of the Richard Nixon White House, at the age of thirty. Who becomes the head of the White House Watergate coverup at 33-34 and ends up becoming the chief witness for the prosecution and the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. And ends up going to jail for his role in the Watergate coverup. Who gets disbarred from being a lawyer and who now is a very successful writer and offer post-Watergate and prison.

John Dean, who considers Mr. Conservative, or Mr. Conservative Libertarian Barry Goldwater, as one his heros. Has now become one of the chief critics of the Republican Party. And was also one of President George W. Bush’s chief critics and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief critics. A chief critic of the Republican Party and how they’ve become dominated by the Christian-Right and Far-Right in general. Who was a Republican, at least up to the point he got out of prison. And again, who considers Barry Goldwater to be one his heros and even wrote a book about him.

Similar to Chuck Colson, John Dean, is an example of how people can change. That they can be good solid productive people at their core and then perhaps go through a rough period, perhaps meet and work with the wrong people and end up doing some really bad things. Like covering up one of the biggest political scandals in American history, that leads to a President resigning from office. To avoid being impeached, convicted and removed by Congress. Who pays the price for the bad actions and regroups and moves on with their life. And lives a good productive life as a result. And that to large extent is the story of John Dean.

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: 'The Greek Crisis Echoed in Democrat’s Entitlement Stance'

Source:Commentary Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

To state the obvious, America is not Greece. Greece, a country of eleven-million people, with an economy somewhere around two-hundred-fifty-million people and yet their central government spends about half of its GDP. Most of that having something to do with the economy, mostly having to do with social welfare programs. Greece, is not a Marxist state, but certainly a social democratic, or even a socialist state, that expects its government to do a lot for them. And people who actually do have jobs there, they are happy to pay for those services and even subsidize people who won’t work. So this idea that they would willing to give up all of their social welfare subsidies, even to save their economy and get bailed out, is foreign to Greeks.

America, is a much different country than Greece. Which shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone, even to Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and his bid for the White House. We don’t expect government to do practically everything for us, or at least most of us don’t. And when our government goes through tough economic and financial times, most of us are willing to do our fair share to deal with that crisis. The Greeks, tend to see as government services and welfare subsidies as free money from government. And wonder why they should have to cut back on the welfare services that they receive. And perhaps don’t even believe that they are paying for those services.

Had America, not of taken the steps to deal with our Great Recession and debt issues back in 2009 and 2011 when we did, perhaps we are Greece right now, or having similar economic issues. But again, America steps up when we have problems and Americans expect their leaders to make those tough decisions. Because we know that all of those public services that receive come with costs. And they have to be affordable and sustainable and effective, so the people who receive those services get the services that they paid for. Unlike Greece, who sees those services as free and the idea that they should cut back in what they receive from their socialist government as somehow unfair and perhaps even mean-spirited.

Dennis Miller Show: David Horowitz: 'A Most Excellent Explanation of the Left's Takeover of America'

Source:We Love Sarah Palin- right-wing author and activist David Horowitz.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dennis Miller interviewed David Horowitz on July 31, 2014.  Horowitz accurately & succinctly described how the Left has successfully taken over America.  It's so sad." 

From We Love Sarah Palin

Like with a lot of partisan political activists (right and left) and that's exactly what David Horowitz is, he has a tendency to be partially factual, but only to make a broader partisan point. 

Yes, the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow and segregation. What the David Horowitz's of the world won't tell you, is that those Jim Crow Democrats and the Dixiecrats, are Republicans today. The Democratic Party, along with Progressive Republicans in Congress, gave us the civil rights of the 1960s. And now right-wing Republicans, along with Libertarians today, are saying that we either no longer need those laws, or they are unconstitutional, or both. 

As far as Democratic big cities and the leadership there: Republicans don't even bother to try to compete in the Detroit's, Chicago's, Philadelphia's, Washington's, Baltimore's, San Francisco's, Los Angeles's, etc, so the cities are left with just Democrats and in many cases just left-wing Democrats, because modern Republican Party is primarily a rural, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male party, that believes America has been going to hell since the 1960s and the civil rights laws and the multiculturalism of today. If the Republican Party wants better, big cities, maybe they should live there and run for office there and present and alternative agenda for how those cities should be run. 

Like I said before about David Horowitz, like a lot of other partisan political activists, David Horowitz has a tendency to be half-right. Not that different from FOX News or MSNBC today. If you are a partisan or an independent, you are not going to learn much from him, because he's either just going to tell you what you already believe, or try to feed you a lot of garbage about the Democratic Party and so-called Liberals. 

Notorious Ediciones: Video: The Gangster and The Goddess: Johnny Stompanato and Lana Turner

Source:Notorious Ediciones- Lana & Cheryl.

Source:The New Democrat

There really needs to be a bio pic of the life of Lana Turner. Lifetime, would be the perfect network for this movie. If the broadcast networks don’t want to show it. Because different, but fairly like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, Lana lived the life of many parts that she played in her movies. Her real-life, was about as wild as the roles she played. The movie The Bad and The Beautiful, is an excellent example of that. Where she plays a tiny and baby-faced adorable goddess, who in many ways comes off like a little girl in that movie. Who is supposed to be the next Hollywood starlet and that is how her movie company portrays her. But who drinks way too much, doesn’t like herself that much and dates the wrong men.

I mean, you’re this hot sexy Hollywood starlet, who is actually a great actress, perhaps one of the best ever, who has been in some of the best and most memorable movies ever and you date gangster Johnny Stompanato. When you already have a young daughter to take care of and your personal life isn’t that great to begin with as far as you manage it. That sounds like the role in a Hollywood movie and yet Lana played that role in real-life. Very well to the point if it was just a movie, she would’ve won an Oscar for her role in it. But that is the life that Lana lived and just one example of why people are so interested in her. Including myself.

Someone who is more mature and responsible with their life, who also has a great Hollywood career going for her as an actress, doesn’t get involved with the men that she did. Gangsters, or some of the men she married and was involved with outside, of lets say organized crime. A responsible mature actress, perhaps never even meets Johnny Stompanato, or any other gangster. And especially doesn’t even allow for their daughter to have any contact with people like that. Because they are not only managing their own professional and personal lives well. But raising their kids and taking care of them. But Lana Turner, as great as she was in many ways, lived a different life.

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: 'Getting Straight Talk On Immigration'

Source:The Eagle Forum.

Source:The New Democrat

No, this is not the Ann Coulter Report, or the Ann Coulter Blog. If it was, I would be a workaholic, dedicated to the life and career of Ann Coulter and probably be a Red Bull and Starbucks addict, in order to have the energy to do that. But intentionally I believe, she has the ability to get the attention of everyone who disagrees with her on most of the issues. Which is probably 80-90% of the country. Her latest book on immigration reform, where similar to Pat Buchanan and Ann, is just as Far-Right and perhaps even further Right than Pat, on foreign policy, where they both argue that Latino immigration is destroying America, is a perfect example of that.

Neoconservatives in America, are in love with the 1950s. Actually go back to the 1920s, or even further back then that before women could vote in America. And they believe America has become like Europe economically and culturally. Even though America takes in a lot more immigrants than Europe every year. Which is why our population is growing and they are shrinking. As well as our economy being much stronger than Europe’s since the Great Recession. Neoconservatives in America, who tend not just to be Caucasian, but Anglo-Saxon as well and whose family came from Britain, tend to see Americans who don’t look, talk, think and live their lives as they do, as Un-American.

The Far-Right, being against immigration is nothing new. They were against the Poles and other Slavs, immigrating to America, as well as the Italians, Jews and Irish, in the early 1900s, because these ethnic groups look different from Anglos and practice a different religion. So why would Latinos, who in most cases ancestors originally came from Europe, in Spain, be any different. Ann Coulter, will probably make a lot of money on her book, even from people who want to see how far out and off based she is. As well as from people who are dumb enough to take her seriously and agree with her. But her book won’t change the political situation. Most Americans, including the conservative Chamber of Commerce, are comfortable with people of other races and ethnicities now.
Source:Fox News