Notes On Liberty: Brandon Christensen: 'Trying to Make Sense of Left & Right'

Source:The New Democrat- as shocking as this may sound: Liberal vs Conservative, is not Left vs Right.

Source:The New Democrat

"Ok. Clearly we need to be using terms that mean the same things to both of us. It’s your thread so tell me what constitutes ‘The American Right’ and what constitutes ‘The American Left’. Once we have a common understanding of terminology we can resume the discussion.

I have been working on a post about this very topic, and this conversation is helping me immensely. Thanks.

First, I think there is a distinction that has to be made between the ‘ideological’ and the ‘political’. The ideological rests atop a higher tier than does the political, like a pyramid. The ideological tier houses philosophical and moral insights, which are produced through the academy and in think tanks. The political tier houses organizations dedicated to parties (I think that factions and parties are two different components of a society, and that factions represent a tier below the ideological and above the political).

The American Right is ideological. The GOP is political. (Factions would consist of actors like bureaucracies, trade unions, industrialists, banks, medical doctors, etc., but can also be used to describe intra-party, or coalitional, differences) The American Right is currently home to three broad ideologies: neo-conservatism (elite and moderate), libertarianism (elite and radical), and traditionalism (populist and radical). I emphasize ‘currently’ because neoconservatives and libertarians were at one point Leftist factions in US history, and could easily end up there again in the near future. In many post-colonial and post-socialist societies, for example, both of these ideologies are considered to be on the Left.

The American Left is currently home to three broad ideologies: fascism, communism, and racism. Just kidding! The three ideologies are, I would argue: New Deal liberalism (elite and moderate), technocratic liberalism (elite and radical), and progressivism (populist and radical).

New Deal liberals and neo-conservatives are only moderate because they are dominated by Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers dominate the population at the moment. Libertarians and the technocrats are broadly younger and more cerebral (hence the radicalism). Traditionalism and progressivism are ideologies for the vulgar mob, of course.

Ideology, using the pyramid analogy, trickles down from the top tier into the factional and political tiers. This is just how it works in societies governed by laws rather than by men. Libertarians have been dominating the ideological discussion for the last 30 years or so, and the technocrats have been playing defense, largely because they are politically aligned – wrongly, of course – with socialism’s failure, but also because technocrats are just libertarians who don’t have the chutzpah to become non-conformists.

Successful politicians from the Democrat Party have been trying to balance their New Deal liberalism with the insights of their technocratic betters, but have been calling themselves ‘progressives’ because of the populist narrative and the fact that they need the votes of the vulgar mob to be successful.

I already don’t like this because I don’t think the Left deserves to be considered ‘liberal’ at all, and there is also the shortcoming of being strictly American in scope. We have got to think in internationalist terms when we discuss power and liberty. NOL has tried to hash this whole issue out before, by the way, and numerous times." 

From Notes On Liberty

I agree with the commentator on this NOL piece somewhat. The Democratic Party and Republican Party are political parties. (You don't say. Now tell me something that I don't know.) I say that only because a political party is not the same thing as a political faction and movement. 

Political parties are in the business only to win elections, to stay in power, and gain political power. Political factions are in the business to advance their movements. And generally they'll be home to a political party, but in many cases they'll only be a faction in it and generally not even a majority faction. 

I don't think there's ever been an America right or an American left. They're different political factions on the Right that have things in common with each other, but they have real differences as well. People who I you would call Classical Conservatives or Constitutional Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians, the William Buckley's and Barry Goldwater's of the world, have things in common with Libertarians (classical and anarcho) but they also have things in common with the Christian-Right, people who would be called Christian Nationalists today. But they have enough disagreements that keep them from ever becoming part of the same political movement. 

On the so-called American Left, you have center-left Progressives, FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ Democrats. But then you have the Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) people who would be called Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders movement, the Green Party, who share similar goals as let's say Progressive Democrats, but want more government involvement, more spending, especially from the Federal level, more government programs, more taxes, to deal with the economic issues of today. Whereas the Progressive believes in progress and is a lot ideological. And tends to believe the best way to deal with economic issues and problems and help people who are struggling, is to empower people to help themselves, even if that means more government investment. 

The modern Republican Party still has a large conservative wing. But it has a neoconservative wing in it as well, people who are a lot more hawkish as it relates to foreign policy, national security, and domestic security, but a lot more progressive than the Barry Goldwater's of the world on economic policy. 

The modern Democratic Party has a progressive wing in it. But it's always had a socialist wing in it, Democratic Socialists from Henry Wallace in the 1930s and 40s, George McGovern in the 1960s and 70s, Dennis Kucinich in the 1990s and 2000s, Bernie Sanders today. But it's always had a center-right, a classical liberal (not leftist) wing in it, from the Thomas Jefferson's from when the party was founded, to John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, and Bill Clinton from the 1990s. 

I think one of the problems with Americans politics is that a lot of Americans don’t understand it. And people get labeled with political labels that don’t reflect their political ideology accurately for good and bad. The so-called mainstream media is a big cause of this problem, because many times they don’t understand the political labels, factions, and ideologies that they talk and report about.

For example, if you believe Barack Obama is a foreigner who was born in another country with no real proof of his American citizenship, you get labeled as a Conservative. Even though no real Conservative would want to have anything to do with the Birthers. Because of course they believe the President was born in Hawaii. 

If you believe in political correctness and that any critical speech that is directed at any minority group or minority in America is somehow not only a form of bigotry and hate, but that it should be censored and that government should step in shut down that type of speech and punish the people who express it, you get labeled as a Liberal. Even though the First Amendment was written by the Founding Liberals of America who gave us Freedom of Speech. And Freedom of Speech is and has always been the first Liberal Value.

If you look at the American political spectrum it goes from the Far-Left where you have Marxists who are Far-Left as people can get and then move a little right and you’ll find Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats. To Progressives who are still on the mainstream Left in America if you think of the New Deal and Great Society and move right from that. And you’ll find where I am the center-right where Liberals (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) sit. 

Then move to the Center-Right of the Republican Party and you’ll find the Conservatives. A bit further right than that and you’ll find the Libertarians. Go Far-Right and you’ll find the Christian-Right in America. Who want their religious beliefs and lifestyle enforces by government on the rest of the country.

The reason why Liberals are center-right and Conservatives are also center-right, because both sides as hard as this is to believe, both believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, the U.S. Constitution, equal rights, equal justice, individual freedom, property rights. But where they differ, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Which is what being a Conservative is all about. Whereas Liberals believe in moving forward.

The reason why Liberals and Conservatives tend to look bad the with average American voter lets say who is not a political junky, or a hyper-partisan and tend to vote based on who they believe best represents them and not their party, is because the fringes on both sides who see bipartisanship and governing as surrender. And who promote big statist views on both sides get labeled either as Liberal, or Conservative based on what side of the political aisle they’re on. 

According to the mainstream media, today’s Liberals are big government Socialists, or Statists who think people are stupid and need big government to manage both their economic and personal affairs for them. And Conservatives are people who want America to police and dominate the world and replace the U.S. Constitution with their version of the Bible. And throw all poor people off of public assistance, cut off all immigration and are all bigots.

The facts are Liberals are center-right. Everywhere outside of America, in the developed world, Liberals are seen as center-right, not center-left or far-left. People who believe in freedom and opportunity for all. Again individual freedom, plus social justice. Using government to expand freedom, not government dependence. 

The real statists in America, are not Liberals or Conservative. But Socialists on the Left, who want a government big enough to manage people's affairs for them. And Christian-Nationalists on the Right, who want to throw out the U.S, Constitution and our form of government and replace it with a fundamentalist, religious form of government. But they get called liberal or conservative by the media, as well people from these statist movements, who self-describe their politics as liberal or conservative. Hopefully this lessens the confusion about what liberal and conservative means in America. 

The Lip TV: 'Whitey: The United States of America V. James J. Bulger'

Source:The Lip TV- talking about the life of Boston-Irish gangster, James Whitey Bulger.

Source:The New Democrat 

"WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER is the documentary about infamous Boston gangster "Whitey" Bulger, and we get the first look at the movie, direct from its premiere at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. Director Joe Berlinger explains to us the fascinating story of Bulger, the true story behind the inspiration for Jack Nicholson's character in the Departed, and the long manhunt and eventual apprehension of one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives in this BYOD."  

From The Lip TV

Source:Mob Video Vault- The Making of a Monster is also about James Whitey Bulger.

Off the top of my head I don’t know of more successful (and I don’t mean that as a complement) Irish-American mobster than James Whitey Bulger. He is the baddest Irish gangster as far as the amount of damage that he’s done in his life to other people. Being personally responsible for at least nineteen murders. And not being convicted of any of them until his early eighties. 

Here’s a guy who started his criminal career in his early teens and was able to keep it going until his early eighties without spending much of that time in prison. We’re not talking about John Gotti, or some other uneducated Italian mobster. We’re talking about an educated intelligent mobster who used his knowledge of the real world to work the system during his criminal career.

The mind-control program that Whitey was part of in Federal prison in the 1950s certainly didn’t help him. And if he doesn’t go through that it would’ve been a great thing for society. He would have spent more time in prison as a result with fewer people being murdered by him. But he was already a bad guy to begin with that had no issues killing anyone who he thought was a threat no matter the consequences that came from it. Not so much to him, but the relatives and friends of his murder victims. 

The Federal prison mind-control program was a mistake and should have never been started. But you can’t say that is the reason why Whitey became the serial murderer that he became. Again, Whitey was doing horrible things before gong to Atlanta and then later Alcatraz.

You could say that Whitey Bulger is the worst piece of garbage that was ever thrown out (and I’m being nice) and again when it comes to his criminal career I would have a hard time arguing with that. But he did have people in his personal life that he loved and took care of. Long-term girlfriends and people who loved him. 

As they say, Whitey was someone who was able to compartmentalized. He didn’t bring his work and I guess evil at home which just made him even more dangerous. Because it meant people around him didn’t know who he really was and he really operated. And fewer people who could turn him in and put him away. 

Whitey isn’t the baddest Irish mobster because of all the people he murdered. But how he was able to murder all of those people. The intelligence and skills he brought to his criminal activities. 

C-SPAN: 'John Boehner Resigns as Speaker of the House'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Cincinnati, Ohio) announcing his retirement.

Source:The New Democrat

"Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announces his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Watch the complete press conference here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

I don’t buy the regular guy line bit at all. John Boehner started off coming from a working-class German-American family in Cincinnati, Ohio which is very common there. But went to college and worked his way through there and became a successful small businessman in Ohio before running and getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, which was a bad year for Republicans who lost seats in the House thanks to a recession and an unpopular President Bush, the country getting ready to go to war with Iraq. 

Go up to 1994, as House Republicans win the House for the first time in forty-two years, he becomes Chairman of the Republican Conference. The fourth ranking Republican in the House. Becomes Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee in 2001, House Majority Leader in 2006 replacing Tom Delay.

John Boehner has spent most of his time in Congress as a House Republican leader, or committee chairman and has been there since 1991. We’re not talking about Joe Jones construction worker from Cleveland (or Cincinnati) who works very hard everyday, so his kids can have a better life than their father and hopefully retire with a decent pension and Social Security. We’re talking about a man with a successful business career, who became Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2011 and has held that job ever since. 

So not only is Speaker Boehner not a regular guy, but I sure as hell don’t feel sorry for him. We’re talking about a man who was never popular in his own caucus. And forget about House Democrats who don’t have much of say in who leads the House, John Boehner who was always in danger of losing his speakership because of his Far-Right and yet he decided to stay on and work through it anyway.

Whatever you think of John Boehner and as a Liberal Democrat I have a laundry list of issues with him myself and not bothering to take up immigration reform in the last Congress even after the Senate passed their own bipartisan bill is just one example, he was really one of the last adults in the House Republican Conference. Someone who at least knew how to govern and do what was right at the end to prevent current House Republican man-made crisis’ from becoming even worst. 

I hope Mr. Boehner remains Speaker, at least until the government funding issues are resolved. Because if you look at his possible replacements when you get past House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, or a bunch of Tea Party radicals there that rather use the government funding debate to try to force their policies on everyone else than to govern. Which means in a divided government working with the other party.

Patrick J. Buchanan: 'US & Catholicism In Crisis'

Source:Patrick J. Buchanan- with a look at the Catholic Church.

Source:The New Democrat

"During the 1950s, the twin pillars of worldwide anti-communism were Dwight Eisenhower’s America and the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.

During the 1980s, the last decade of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan and the Polish pope, John Paul II, were the pillars of resistance.

When Pope Francis arrives in Washington on Tuesday afternoon, the country he enters will be a very different one from Eisenhower’s America or Reagan’s America. And Catholics will be welcoming a new kind of pope.

In America 2015, homosexuality, abortion on demand and same-sex marriage — shameful crimes in Ike’s America, mortal sins in the catechism of Pius XII — have become constitutional rights.

These represent the values that define Barack Obama’s America, the values our officials defend at the United Nations, the values we preach to the world.

What Ike’s America saw as decadence, Obama’s America calls progress. And among its noisiest celebrants are our Catholic vice president, Joe Biden, and the Catholic leader of the Democratic Party in the House, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Since Eisenhower’s time, Christianity, the faith that created the West, has been purged from American public life. The Bible, prayer, and all Christian art, books and symbols have been expunged from the public schools as they were in Cuba when Fidel Castro took power.

Our cradle faith cannot be taught in our public schools.

America is a different country today, a secular and post-Christian nation on its way to becoming anti-Christian. Some feel like strangers in their own land. And from the standpoint of traditional Catholicism, American culture is an open sewer. A vast volume of the traffic on the Internet is pornography.

Ironically, as all this unfolds in what was once “God’s country,” Vladimir Putin seeks to re-establish Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the basis of morality and law in Russia. And one reads in The Wall Street Journal on Monday that Xi Jinping is trying to reintroduce his Chinese Communist comrades to the teachings of Confucianism.

The world is turned upside down. Every civilization seems to recognize the necessity of faith except for the West, which has lost its faith and is shrinking and dying for lack of it.

In a New York Times article this month — “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” — Steven Erlanger writes:

“In its rejection of Western liberal values of sexual equality and choice, conservative Russia finds common cause with many in Africa and with the religious teachings of Islam, the Vatican, fundamentalist Protestants and Orthodox Jews.”

Yet what Erlanger describes as “conservative Russia” does seem to share values with America, only it is the America of 1955, another country from the America of 2015.

Which raises a question: Does moral truth change?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election.

He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?

Or does truth exist independent of the marketplace?

Secular America, which has purged Christianity, preaches a new gospel to the world: liberal democracy as the salvation of mankind.

Yet did not Winston Churchill, icon of the democracy worshippers, tell us that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”?

The Catholic Church, too, faces a growing crisis of moral consistency and credibility.

The church of Pius XII and John Paul II taught that the truths of the Ten Commandments brought down from Sinai and the truths of the Sermon on the Mount are eternal. Those popes also taught that a valid marriage is indissoluble, that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, that abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn, an abomination.

Yet one reads regularly of discussions inside the Vatican to alter what is infallible church teaching on these doctrines to make the church more appealing to those who have rejected them.

As the pope arrives in America, some Catholics are calling for an acceptance of contraception, the ordination of women and a new acceptance of homosexuality. Yet the Episcopalians, who have embraced all these “reforms” and more, appear to be going the way of James Fenimore Cooper’s Mohicans.

In Cuba, Pope Francis declined to address the repression of the Castro brothers. Will he also avoid America’s moral crisis to chatter on about income inequality and climate change and find common ground with Obama?

What has come out of the Vatican in the past two years is moral confusion. Yet as Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput reminds us, “confusion is of the devil.” It is also trifling with schism.

Having emerged victorious in the 70-year ideological struggle against one of the greatest enemies that mankind has ever known, Marxism-Leninism, are the United States and the Catholic Church heading for the same desuetude and disintegration?" 

From Patrick J. Buchanan

"Before the 1992 New Hampshire primary, insurgent Republican candidate Pat Buchanan told "Face the Nation" why he was campaigning against his party's incumbent president." 

Source:Face The Nation- 1992 presidential candidate Pat Buchanan being interviewed by CBS News.

From Face The Nation

I’m not religious at all as an Agnostic. I don’t promote religion like a believer would, or put it down like a militant Atheist would. I’m completely neutral on the subject other than I believe in Freedom of Religion as well as Separation of Church and State. So asking me what is the state of Catholicism in America would be like asking the average mechanic what is the state of cancer research and expecting an expert opinion from that person on that subject. But I’m familiar with the 1950s even though I was born twenty-years later (give or take) and of course I’m familiar with today’s Modern America since I live in it.

Countries tend to progress and change. What might of seemed wrong or immoral to one generation of Americans back in the day may not seem wrong to people 20-40 years later (Let's say) Especially when you’re talking about activities that don’t actually involve hurting innocent people: 

Like what people watch on TV, consensual sex between adults even if they are from the same gender 

romantic couples deciding to live with each other and not getting married and perhaps even having kids 

women not just working, but having good responsible jobs where they even have men working under them 

gays living openly and no longer feeling the need hide their sexuality, and gay men not feeling the need to be viewed as masculine and gay women not feeling they should be feminine

So of course the America that Pope Francis is going to see this week will looking nothing like the America of the 1950s. But unless you’re a Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, Caucasian man, especially of wealth, why would you want to go back to the 1950s and have worry about be discriminated against simply because of your race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, where you were born even. 

America might have been a utopia for the Christian-Right especially the Anglo-Saxon, Southern Protestants. But not a very good place for just about everyone else. America has progressed a lot in the last sixty-years as most developed countries have. And progress is something that most people tend to be fans of anyway.

U.S. History: The New Right

Source: Liberty University-

Source:The New Democrat

The reason why I’m writing this piece is that I saw a video last week on YouTube. And it was about the New-Left in America and how they deal with free speech and their opposition to it and how they try to censor people they disagree with, or critical things about people they believe deserve special protection. And the guy made one particular good point about both the Christian-Right or New-Right and the New-Left. He said that the Christian-Right lost the Cultural War in America because they believed they could win that debate on the issues by making their case. Even though they operating in a country that doesn’t want big government in their personal lives and telling them how to live.
This guy’s point about the New-Left was also interesting and correct. He said that the New-Left and lets take free speech and their political correctness movement as an example, they don’t try to win the debate. They don’t even debate many times because they know government is not going or could constitutionally pull people from the air, or shut people up for simply saying things that they disagree with. So what they do with all of their petition’s and marches and trying to prevent people from speaking at functions and shouting them down from the audience is to try to privately censor people they disagree with. Bill Maher, hardly a rightist who has a lot of common with the New-Left on economic policy, is a perfect example of this from last fall and his comments about Islam.

The New-Right and New-Left even though they come from complete opposite fringes of the political spectrum, one being Far-Right and Far-Left, actually have a lot in common. They were both created about the same time late 1960s and early 1970s. They both believe they know what type of country America should be. With the New-Right we would essentially become a Christian Theocracy where their version of the Bible would replace the U.S. Constitution as our governing book and rule book. With the New-Left we would become a social democracy as it relates to economic policy. But more of a Marxist State when it comes to personal issues and free speech, or the lack of it would just be 

just one example.

The New-Right was created to take on Hollywood, the Cultural Revolution, the 1960s, Women’s Liberation, Social Liberalism and they really came together in the early and mid 1970s with Roe V Wade become law of the land and making abortion legal in the United States. The New-Left was created to take on American capitalism, America’s involvement in the Cold war and trying to defeat communism and other authoritarian ideologies. As well to create more spaces for women to achieve and even take over in America and to force wealthy Americans especially Caucasian-Americans to give up their wealth to take care of the poor through government. Both movements are fascist. If you disagree with the New-Right you’re Un-American and immoral. If you disagree with the New-Left you’re selfish and a bigoted.

You can’t really cover the complete history of the New-Right and New-Left in one blog piece. You would need a book to do that, but what I’m doing here is giving you brief history of both movements and to show you that even though they both operate on complete sides of the American spectrum they actually both have a lot in common. They would both transform America into something that it completely isn’t outside of perhaps the Bible Belt, or New York City and San Francisco. Neither side believes in freedom for the most part, unless you’re living the way and believe in the things that they do. But both sides are both collectivist and see individualism and individual freedom as dangerous things and would like to eliminate them.
Source:Plano Prof

Daniel JB Mitchell: WOR News Radio- Senator Robert J. Dole: 'Castigates Anti-War Democrats on Vietnam: 3-27-1971'

Source:Daniel JB Mitchell- U.S. Senator Robert J. Dole (Republican, Kansas) Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1971-72)

Source:The New Democrat 

"Republican Senator and Republican National Chairman Robert Dole castigated anti-war Democrats regarding the Vietnam War in this excerpt from a radio newscast. WOR, New York City, March 27, 1971. Dole was later the Republican candidate for President in 1996." 

From Daniel JB Mitchell

President Richard Nixon was very paranoid about the anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He thought these New-Left protesters were not just being influenced by the Communist Party, but that Communists were running this movement. Even though his own White House couldn’t find any evidence linking the Communist Party directly with the anti-war movement. President Nixon's own staff like Bud Krogh admitted as such. 

Senator Robert Dole who of course is better known as Bob Dole, was Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1971-72. What he was doing here assuming the WOR radio report is correct was expressing the views of the President of the United States about the anti-war movement in the country.

Bob Dole, was one of the most partisan people in Congress back then and almost had to be as Chairman of the RNC. And was also one of the most skillful politicians that has ever served in Congress. You almost have to be to lead your party in the Senate for eleven years both as Leader and then Minority Leader. And this is well before he even came President Gerry Ford’s vice presidential nominee in 1976 and before he became Chairman of the Finance Committee in 1981 after Senate Republicans won back the Senate in 1980. 

By the time Dole is elected to the Senate in 1968 he moves up very quickly: Chairman of the RNC in 1971, reelected to the Senate in an awful Republican year in 1974, becomes Ranking Member of the Finance Committee in 1977 and just continues to climb in the Senate after that.

ABC: Barbara Walters Interviews of a Lifetime- Goldie Hawn (1982)

Source:Dialogues- Hollywood Goddess Goldie Hawn, being interviewed by ABC News's Barbara Walters, in 1982.

Source:The Daily Review

"Goldie Hawn - Barbara Walters Interview 1982. Aired: December 14 1982.

From ABC

Source:The Daily Review- Hollywood Goddess Goldie Hawn, being interviewed by ABC News's Barbara Walters, in 1982.

To me at least Goldie Hawn is one of the cutest, sexiest, hottest, comedians of all-time. She’s literally one of the funniest women and people who has ever come out of Hollywood. The airhead the way that Goldie put it as far as how some people see her is completely not true.

Airheads don’t produce hit movies by themselves which is what she’s done with Private Benjamin. Whatever you think of that movie it is one of the most popular movies of all-time. I see Goldie as the funniest actress of her generation, but Sally Field, Bette Midler and Diane Keaton, Kathleen Turner, come close. But because Goldie is so cute and her comedic timing she doesn’t need a script to be funny. She does that simply by being herself and how she carries herself.

I believe that Goldie gets the adorable airhead image because she’s so adorable with the baby-face and personality to match and in a lot of many and still today pushing 70, she’s still very funny and comes off as goofy. But you’re not going to find an actress/comedian this good and intentionally this funny who doesn’t have real talent and intelligence to go with it.

Goldie has worked with Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, Kurt Russell, all great comedic actors and I at least believe she’s always been the funnier person in those movies. Especially Housesitter with Steve Martin from 1992. Not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but she plays an adorable, funny, sexy, hippie and Steve Martin plays a some stiff stuck up snob in the movie.

I’m not saying that Goldie Hawn is the best actress ever, or even her generation. She can do dramatic work and has done that even though she probably brought her humor to those roles as well. But she’s great at what she does. She knows who she is and plays that very well. A gorgeous, baby-faced adorable sexy actress, with a great sense of humor and timing, to go with a quick intelligence. Similar to a Joan Rivers, or a Carol Burnett she doesn’t try to do things that might be out of her range. But instead uses her great talent and gets the most out of it. Similar to John Belushi who was once asked, “why do you only play comedic parts?” And Belushi said something to the effect:“why not, someone has to make people laugh and I’m really good at it.” Goldie Hawn is a great comedic/actress who can play dramatic parts, but she’s successful because she makes people laugh.

The Rape of Justice: Jeff Rense Interviewing Eustace Mullins- Joe McCarthy and The Kennedy's

Source:Bit Chute- A look at Senator Joe McCarthy and The Kennedys.

Source:The New Democrat

"EUSTACE MULLINS - JOE MCCARTHY & THE KENNEDYS"

From Bit Chute

Here’s a radio interview I guess on the Joe Rense Show, or whatever that show is called with Eustace Mullins. Eustace Mullins was one of the top conspiracy theorists in America in the 20th Century. Part of the so-called New World Order crowd who saw the Federal Reserve as some dictatorship. Who was anti-semitic and believed the Jews were trying to run the world. So to have a man like this believe that what Senator Joe McCarthy was doing with his McCarthy hearings in the Senate in 1953-54 was a good thing and that a lot of good came from that, is not surprising that someone of that background could believe all of that nonsense. (To be nice)

I mean to call Franklin Roosevelt a Communist when he and his administration helped create the U.S. National Security State that not only won World War II and defeated the German Nazis, but also gave America the strength it needed to fight and win the Cold War and defeat Russian communism, gives you an idea how far Eustace Mullins played out in right field. Probably somewhere around 1000 feet if not miles from home plate. He might even need binoculars, or a telescope to see home plate, or even centerfield from how Far-Right and conspiratorial he was. But Joe McCarthy wasn’t by himself. He not only believed that Communists were going to takeover the U.S. Government, but had a lot of support on the Far-Right in America who believed the same thing in the 1950s.

I’m sure that Joe McCarthy wanted to find Communists in the U.S. Government both Truman and Eisenhower administration’s, but his ultimate goal was to run for president and run as the top anti-Communist Cold Warrior in America. And run for president in 1960 and use his investigating committee as his launching post in order to accomplish that. That obviously crashed and burn with a Republican Senate along with support from Senate Democrats the minority party back then voting to censor Senator McCarthy in 1954. Because both caucus’ believed that McCarthy went too far and hurt a lot of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with communism other than perhaps knowing Communists, or meeting them at functions.

Newsmax: The Hard Line With Ed Berliner- Telling it Like it is About American Voters

Source:Newsmax- Newsmax's Ed Berliner, talking on dumb American voters. 

Source:The New Democrat

Wow! That is my far the most important and meaningful thing that I’ve ever heard from Newsmax. Other than their documentaries which are actually pretty interesting. There is not a single thing that I disagreed with on Ed Berliner there. He went right after the American voter and put the blame squarely on where it should be which is the American voter. If you don’t like corrupt politicians and candidates, don’t freakin vote for them! And that is as nice as I can be on that. If you’re not smart enough to keep up with what politicians do and what they say and to check up on their records, or you don’t think you have the time, or you don’t think that voting is awesome or whatever and just for nerds or people like that, don’t waste your time and the people’s time by voting.

American politics and American politicians can only be as good as the people that they are supposed to represent. Even corrupt candidates and politicians have to get elected to hold office or hold onto office. Which means voters hold most of the power here and get to decide who represents them. You have a smart educated voting class who do their homework and knows who is for real and who is telling them what they want to here and the good people will get elected and reelected and the crooks and phonies will have to find real jobs and have to earn those jobs. Like selling used cars, or investing in real estate, or creating so-called reality TV shows. Actually those jobs are real jobs compared with serving in Congress, running political campaigns.

The only reason why someone like a Donald Trump who is a one-man reality show called Who Wants Donald Trump to be President can even get as far as he is now before he crashes and burns like one his bankrupt companies is because we have a voting class in America who are simply looking for people to tell them what they want to hear. And don’t bother to research if what they are saying now comes anywhere close to what they’ve said in the past. The Donald Trump of 2015 ideologically is nothing like the Donald Trump of 2008.

The Donald in 2008 was actually fairly centrist and was probably even a Democrat if not Independent. Who voted for Bill Clinton and supported Planned Parenthood. But his so-called supporters probably don’t know that. Because that would require doing something other than listening to soundbites, political commercials and watching speeches. We only get better politicians and politics with better voters who do their homework and vote accordingly. And we don’t have that right now. Instead we have people who are looking for the next hot candidate who looks like there from Hollywood, or who’ll tell them what they want to hear.
Source:Newsmax

The NBA History: The 1979-80 NBA Season: That Magic Season

Source:The NBA History- Earvin Johnson, being Magical against the Philadelphia 76ers, in the 1980 NBA Finals.

Source:The Daily Review 

"The 1980 Payoffs and Championship series." 

From The NBA History

Pre-1980 the Los Angeles Lakers hadn’t even been to the NBA Finals since their last NBA Championship in 1972. They got to the Western Conference Finals, but lost to the Seattle Sonics. As great as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was who is the greatest center of all-time if not the greatest player of all-time, the Lakers needed another great player to complement Kareem. Jamal Wilkes, was a very good player and even an all-star caliber player, but he wasn’t a great dominant franchise player.

And that is what General Manager Jerry West and the Lakers went after during the 1979 offseason after again being eliminated by the Sonics. That other great player that would complement Kareem and make the Lakers champions again.

Not sure how the Lakers who were 47-35 and had the fifth best record in the Western Conference in 1979 were able to get the number one draft pick in 1979, but that is how they got that great franchise caliber player who could complement Kareem.

Drafting Magic Johnson in 1979 was like making a trade for a great franchise player whose in the prime of his career, but perhaps now stuck playing for bad teams. Or making a great free agent signing of the best player in the game that puts you on top for winning the championship. Magic didn’t revitalize, or rebuild the Lakers. What he did was go to an already a pretty good team that was already a Western Conference contender and made them an NBA Championship caliber team.

So when the Lakers met the Philadelphia 76ers in the 1980 NBA Finals it was a Finals between two very good if not great teams. The Lakers had Kareem, Magic, Jamal Wilkes and a whole host of great role players like Michael Cooper and Jim Chones.

The 76ers had Julius Erving, arguably the best all around player in the game at this point. But they didn’t have a great big man, or even an all-star big man who could deal with Kareem and make Kareem work on defense and keep him honest,

Darryl Dawkins was a great talent and at times a very good player, but not very consistent. Caldwell Jones was a very good defensive big man and rebounder, but an occasional scorer. Which left the 76ers with Dr. J and a whole host of role players, going up against a team that had perhaps the two best players in the league, at least in the NBA Finals in Kareem and Magic. 

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ronald Reagan On State's Rights (1967)

Source:Liberty Pen- Governor Ronald W. Reagan W. California.

Source:The New Democrat

What Bill Buckley and then Governor Ronald Reagan of California were talking about here in 1967 was the growth of the Federal Government from the Great Society and other programs and how that growth impacts the state’s. Bill Buckley and Governor Reagan, making the argument that if government does more and taxes more it would leave fewer resources and less things for the state’s to do. Since the Federal Government gets a piece out of every tax base in every state and each state has to operate out of available funds in their own state that the Feds also has access to. Which I believe is fair argument about the Great Society and goes to who should be running all of these social welfare programs. The Feds’s, or the state’s.

I don’t think anyone would design the New Deal and Great Society today the way they were designed back in the 1930s and 1960s. Today’s so-called Progressives, would have expanded those programs. Today’s Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians really, would have decentralized those programs have the state’s be responsible for running them in their own state’s. Today’s Liberals, such as myself would have designed those programs to empower people in need to get on their own feet. Things like education, job training, even encouraging disabled people to work as much as they can, encouraging economic development in low-income communities. And I even like the idea as a Liberal Federalist myself of having the state’s run these social welfare programs. Provided that the money for those programs is used the way its intended.

The Book Archive: Booknotes With Brian Lamb: Leonard Garment On Crazy Rhythm (1997)

Source:The Book Archive- Former White House counselor Leonard Garment.

Source:The New Democrat

Len Garment was a friend and law partner of Richard Nixon in the mid and late 1960s and then went on to work in President Nixon's White House in 1969 and the early 1970s. I believe he left after President Nixon resigned in 1974. He knew Dick Nixon about as anyone could, or Nixon would allow for someone else to know him. Garment was one of the few people outside of his wife Pat that he actually trusted and liked very much. Garment, was certainly smart enough to know that President Nixon was guilty of the things that he was going to be impeached for by the House, at least the obstruction of justice and coverup, but was one of Nixon's strongest defenders as the accomplished lawyer that he was at least through the late 1990s.

I believe if you were in the type of trouble that Dick Nixon was in the early and mid 1970s and of by the way you also just happen to be President of the United States, you might want Len Garment defending you. Because he'll know your case and story better than you do, or at least give you than impression and go out of his way to defend you and even spin your story the best way that it can be. Americans tend to bash lawyers especially defense attorney's until they actually need one and Garment falls into that category. Len Garment, is one of the biggest fans of Dick Nixon. He respected and liked the man a lot. He loved Nixon's intelligence, memory, energy, ability to see things happening in the future, foresight.

Aaron Schwartz: Danny Schwartz & Alison Martino- Rita Hayworth: Mysteries & Scandals

Source:The Daily Review- Not sure who's wedding this is, but it's not The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Rita Hayworth Mysteries & Scandals Produced by Danny Schwartz & Alison Martino." Originally from Alison Martino, but this video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

"We start off learning about her strange relationship with her father before moving on to her break in Hollywood. From here we learn about the various negative things including her affairs and four marriages. From here we learn about various abuses, which led the actress to the bottle and eventually a major health issue. If you're a fan of the series then you'll certainly find enough drama here for two episodes. Those interviewed do a very good job explaining people about Hayworth's rise to fame and the various things that caused her to be a controversial figure." 

Source:IMDB- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

From IMDB 

Source:Daniel Schwartz- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

From Daniel Schwartz

Source:The Daily Review- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth.

If you are familiar with the classic movie channels like Get-TV and Movies, which is an actual name of a movie channel, you’re probably pretty familiar with Rita Hayworth. Because they play her movies practically everyday between both channels. Turner Classic Movies and FOX Movie Channel, plays her movies from time to time as well.

Rita, is still one of the most popular actress’s and Hollywood goddess’ of all-time. I imagine her photos kept soldiers going during World War II. Thinking if they make it back from that war they might get to meet her. She was World War II’s favorite pin-up girl at least on the American side.

A couple actress’s as far as how they worked and lived that you could compare with Rita would be Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. Who when they were hot were two of the biggest starlets in Hollywood. But also had very complicated and chaotic personal lives. The problem with that is Rita had a long great career. Marilyn and Jayne died at the ages of 36 and 34 respectfully.

Perhaps the best and closest comparison as far as the type of personal life that they lived and the impact that they both made on Hollywood would be Lana Turner. Who drank too much, dated mobsters and could be very unpredictable. But when they were on their game they were both great actress’s.

Rita Hayworth physically reminds me of Raquel Welch. And not just because they’re both red-head, both of Spanish descent, gorgeous, well-built and really cute, but they could entertain. They were also both great entertainers who could act, sing and dance and humor people and in Raquel’s case still doing all of those things.

Rita, wasn’t a flash in the pan, or what could have been if only she did more of this, or that, or took care of herself, or what have you. Here was an actress who came out in the early 1940s and was still a star in the 1970s. Despite all the personal issues she had when she was not working and perhaps even when she was working. And that is really how she should be remembered. As one of the top Hollywood Goddess’s and actress’s of all-time. 

Keith Hughes: 'The Balanced Budget Amendment Explained'

Source:Keith Hughes- on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Source:The New Democrat

"Whether you think the balanced budget amendment is the best thing since sliced bread or the embodiment of Lucifer or you have no idea what the heck it, we'll give you the basics!" 

From Keith Hughes

On its face, I guess the Balanced Budget Amendment sounds like a good thing. The problems are several and not just the impracticality of it, that it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it and then if Congress were to pass it then you’re looking at thirty-four states having to approve if it as well. 

But then there’s also the economic problems with a BBA. When the economy is slow, you don’t want to cut infrastructure and Unemployment Insurance. If anything you want to invest more in those programs to put people back to work and help people get back to work faster. When the economy is doing well, that is when you want to keep your deficit and debt down. So when the economy slows down it doesn’t have a high debt and deficit to go with it as well.

One easy thing to get our debt and deficit under control would simply to have a Federal PAYGO law. Pay as you go and under that Congress wouldn’t be able to invest more in, or create a new program anywhere in the government without paying for it through either taxes, fees, or cutting other spending to pay for it. And Congress wouldn’t be allowed to cut taxes without paying for that loss in revenue to government as well. 

You could also do things like not allowing for government to grow faster than the economy when the economy is growing and when you have a large workforce. Reforming the government and budget and having Washington do less and using public assistance to put people to work and become economically independent.

What we really should be doing is start with, “shall do no further harm.” Don’t add to the current debt and deficit by creating higher deficits. And that is where PAYGO comes in. 

And then go from there like having fewer people in poverty and on public assistance with a stronger economy that is producing not just more jobs, but more good jobs where people don’t also have to have public assistance to support themselves at all. 

We could also use public assistance to again not just support people in the short-term and put them to work, but to put them to work working good jobs. So they don’t need things like public assistance to support themselves at all. And that gets to things like more education and job training for non-working low-skilled adults and for unemployed workers who need additional skills to get a good job.

All Things Film: Goodfellas: The Making Of A Classic

Source:All Things Film- actor Paul Servino.

Source:The Daily Review

If you ask the people who were actually part of these Italian crime families in New York in the 1960s and 1970s when Goodfellas takes place, they’ll tell you watching this movie is like watching their lives take place on the big screen. Henry Hill, who was played by Ray Liotta, who a lot of this movie is based on and Henry’s life, would tell you this movie is a true story. And what I would add to that is that it’s a true comedy, or at the very least a true dramatic comedy. Because this is not just perhaps the best Italian Mafia movie of all-time, but I believe also one of the funniest movies of all-time.

I talked a lot about this about the piece about Joe Pesci with David Letterman. But a lot of the humor in this movie is improvisational. Here is this very true story about some really bad people who have all killed a lot of people in their lives. Most of those people being bad people, but still guilty of a lot of murders, but a lot of these characters live such crazy lives and do a lot of dangerous things. And I believe humor is a way that these real-life characters use to get through each day and simply survive. Otherwise they might go crazy always worrying about if your best friend just poisoned your drink, or food trying to whack you, or something. Or is this the day the FBI puts you way, or whatever the case.

And I think Martin Scorsese and his crew meaning his cast especially Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta, who are all great improvisational comedic actors to begin with all saw about the characters that they’re playing. And decide to play their characters as if they’re playing wise assess as well as wise guys and played them like they’re crazy and hysterically funny. If you listen to Ray Liotta narrate the movie, there is one dry joke after another in how he narrates the movie. Like the way he talks about how you cut up a dead body and does it in such a casual way. And to be honest with you I’m not sure if Bob De Niro and Joe Pesci especially when they’re together, are capable of playing a character in a completely straight way. They’re humor always comes out.

Goodfellas, is about the crazy and at times at least the hysterically funny lives of people who work in and out of the Italian Mafia in New York in the 1970s. And even though it is a true story and a dramatic story, it’s still one of the funniest movies ever. And I believe the funniest Mafia movie of all-time. Just because of the characters that these actors play and the actors who play them. Who are all great improvisational comedic actors. And then you throw in the great soundtrack with Eric Clapton, Tony Bennet, Johnny Mathis, The Crystals and many others and you’re talking about really I believe the perfect dramatic comedy movie.

The Late Show With David Letterman: Joe Pesci Talking About Goodfellas (1994)

Source:My Talk Show Heroes- Joe & Dave: Two All-American Guys.

Source:The Daily Review

"JOE PESCI - `GOODFELLAS`: Letterman 1994."

From My Talk Show Heroes

Here you have a Hall of Fame comedy duo here in David Letterman. One of I believe the top five or so best late night talk show hosts of all-time and a hell of a standup comedian as well. And Joe Pesci, whose one of the best improvisational actors of all-time. Who can make serious characters look like comedians and make the funniest people you'll ever see seem even funnier. Because again like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro to use as examples, he's not only a great improvisational actor, but he has a great sense of humor as well. A great comedian who perhaps has never done standup comedy in his entire career other than giving awards speeches.

Dave and Joe, are talking about Goodfellas here. Which is one of my top 2 Italian Mafia movies of all-time. I go back and forth between Goodfellas and Casino. Donnie Brasco, is also one of my favorites. But Goodfellas is a movie that is not just based on a true story and about Italian mob families in New York, but if you talk to the real-life characters that these actors played, like Henry Hill the character that Ray Liotta played they would tell you that Goodfellas is a true story. And it was like seeing themselves in real-life in that movie. Joe Pesci, played mobster Tommy DeVito and he probably has the funniest part in that movie.

Joe Pesci, like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Cary Grant, Burt Reynolds, are actors/comedians that don't need scripts. At least to be funny they can turn their character into themselves and you tell them who the character is and what they're doing in the movie and they'll not only play it, but add their own flavor to the role and especially add a lot of their humor to the role. They can make simple lines and scenes look hysterical. De Niro, with his facial expressions and the way he delivers lines and perhaps adds his own material. Pesci, by taking a crazy, or funnier character and making that person look like the funniest and craziest person in the world.

Blog For Arizona: The So-Called Religious Liberty Aka License to Discriminate Legal Fight

Source:Blog For Arizona-Clerk Rowan County, Kentucky.

Source:The New Democrat

The whole Kim Davis same-sex marriage vs. so-called religious liberty case in Kentucky, is the best case for Separation of Church and State that I’ve ever seen in this country. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are the best cases worldwide for Separation of Church and State. If Clerk Kim Davis doesn’t want to serve part of the public, then she shouldn’t have a government job. Government, is open for the public and that included gays who are obviously people and part of the public. Even in a third-world backwards state like Kentucky where not everyone there is able to go to and finish school. She should instead go to the Kentucky hills, or someplace and work as a coal miner. Or get a job at a Kentucky beer, or whisky factory, or someplace in the private sector.

Kim Davis could volunteer for the Mike Huckabee campaign for president and what’s left of it. And spread the gospel and evils as they see it of homosexuality and add to the list of states that Mike Huckabee will either lose, or won’t even have the resources to compete in. She could work for her church and talk about the importance of religious liberty, again as they see it. But once you’re open for the public as government offices are, you’re responsible for serving the public. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Kentucky. Gay couples have the same right to get married in Kentucky as straight couples. And if she has a problem with that she wouldn’t work for Rowan County Government, or any government in Kentucky and instead move onto the private sector.

Kim Davis, is now looking at real jail time and putting her family and herself through hell for simply not doing her job. She’s under a state order from the Governor and now court orders in Kentucky, to either do her job and serve the whole public, or go to jail. She has no legal authority to deny gay couples marriage licenses simply because her religious views sees homosexuality as a sin. And whether she’s smart enough to understand that, her lawyers better be, or they shouldn’t be practicing law anywhere. She should drop what she’s doing and simply resign her office and move on with the rest of her life and save herself and her family a lot of pain.