CNBC: Dick Cavett Show- William F. Buckley (1995)

Source:CNBC- Dick Cavett interviewing one of the founding father's of the American classical conservative movement in 1995, William F. Buckley.

Dick Cavett after his ABC show went off the air in the 1970s, came back in the 1990s with a new talk show, but this time on CNBC, which is owned by NBC News. And he interviewed someone who I believe is one of the founding father’s of the American classical conservative movement in William F. Buckley, who was still the publisher and contributor for the conservative Firing Line Magazine in 1995. Unfortunately there are no links or videos for that interview online right now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose talking about public education in America.

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell appearing on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979-80.

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From English Stack Exchange 

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Glenn Beck: 'David Horowitz Discuss Conservatives Using Saul Alinsky Tatics'

Source:Fox News- Glenn Beck talking to David Horowitz.

"Glenn Beck with David Horowitz discuss conservatives using Saul Alinsky tactics to get their message out.  Inverting the paradigm....doing what liberals do....Community Organizing" 

From Some Political Clips

In case anyone is wondering or isn't already aware of this: Saul Aklinsky was a left-wing, big city, community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. He's also a left-wing boogyman for the Far-Right in America, sort of like George Soros. And every time leftists in America try to do something create a movement behind something, or try to get some agenda passed in Congress or in some state legislature, the David Horowitz's of the world or people like Glenn Beck, accuse these leftists and sometimes leftist Democrats of using Alinsky like tactics to accomplish whatever they're trying to accomplish. So that's what Beck and Horrowitz are talking about here.

John Birch Society: Arthur R. Thompson- 'Corruption of the Republican Party'

Source:John Birch Society- Arthur R. Thompson is the CEO of the JBS.

"In this weekly video news update for May 7-13, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses Ron Paul and the Republican Party; Canada goes penniless; Al Qaeda still a Russian asset; Jobless students pose a problem; and Recall in Wisconsin and syndicalism." 

From the John Birch Society

If you look at what the major political parties (meaning in Republican Party and Democratic Party) are in the business to do, it's to win elections. It's really that simple, similar to how sports franchises are in the business to win games, at least the successful ones. The Republicans and Democrats are in the business to win elections, even if that means compromising what party principles that they may have and even nominating people that might not be real Republicans or Democrats, at least to the party's base. 

What populist movements and even fringe movements, in the Republican Party and Democratic Party are in the business to do, when it comes to political parties, is advance their movements and values and get their people into office. And that starts by first winning their party's nomination. Even if that means they don't ever have a blizzards chance in Hawaii of winning the general election. If their candidate looks like an escape mental patient, whose 5 cans short of a six pack in the general election, that person will probably seem like a hero to their political movement. 

What we're seeing right now in the Republican Party is an opposition party that wants to win back the presidency. Well, that's what establishment in the party wants to do, as well as keep or expand their majority in the House, and win back the Senate. 

What the populists in the Republican Party want to do is to nominate their people, even if they don't have a snipers chance at a firing range of winning the general election. Which is why you are seeing Mitt Romney, the establishment Republican, versus Rick Santorum the populist, and Ron Paul the Libertarian Republican, for their presidential nomination.

House Republicans: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan- 'Who Should Control Medicare?'

Source:House Republicans- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) speaking to Georgetown University in Washington, about Medicare.

"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan speaks at Georgetown University." 

From the House Republicans

Just on a personal note first: Representative Paul Ryan who is Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has this tendency to say when he's giving a speech either outside of the U.S. House or on the House floor, or in committee when talking about a particular: "Democrats like to talk about (fill in the blank) we welcome this debate, we need this debate." 

What Representative Ryan is essentially advocating for is a competition or free market of ideas about which side (meaning Republicans or Democrats) have the best ideas and who ultimately should be in charge of government in Washington: Republicans or Democrats. 

Representative Ryan is not talking about even though the Republican Party currently only controls the lower chamber of Congress and has a Democratic Senate and White House to confront, how best can Republicans and Democrats work with each other (and this sounds corny) for the good of the country. But instead wants to go back to the good ole days of the 2000s (as Republicans see it) when the Republican Party was in charge of everything in Washington.

As far as Medicare, Chairman Ryan leaves out a very important point about his own Medicare plan and that might be because this provision is very unpopular and is something that both House and Senate Democrats, as well as President Barack Obama will use and are already using against House and Senate Republicans, as well as Mitt Romney. Current seniors would be able to keep their traditional Medicare, as well as Baby Boomers who are close to retirement. But his Generation X, which is also my generation, would be forced into a voucher system once we're eligible to retire and lose real choice in how we pay for our health care in our senior years.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley: The Sixties

Source:Hoover Institution- Conservative writer William F. Buckley, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 1998.

"In this rereleased interview from 1998, Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair magazine, is a self-proclaimed radical.  William F. Buckley, Jr., editor-at-large of National Review magazine, is one of the most noted conservatives in the country.  During the 1960’s, Hitchens enjoyed the counter-culture, whereas Buckley was one of the founders of the politically conservative counter counter-culture.  Thirty years later (1998), and Hitchens and Buckley are still wrangling over the Revolution."

From the Hoover Institution

This might sound warped or insane or something but I'm going to argue that two of the most divisive decades America has ever had are the 1960s and 1980s had more in common, then they were different.

The 1960s a decade that Liberals generally speak in positive terms. (and I'm one of them) And the 1980s a decade that Conservatives tend to speak in positive terms. I'm a Liberal but I generally look at the 1980s in positive terms, except for the music. I say this because both decades were about freedom but to a certain extent in different forms.

The 1960s was about freedom, thats what Hippies and the civil rights movement we're fighting for. And this was also one of the reasons why so many Americans were killed as a result in a big way because of what they were fighting for. Jack Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin King, Bobby Kennedy and others, were killed because of they stood for, which was freedom.

The 1980s was also a decade about freedom, economic freedom but also social freedom, with the Reagan Revolution as well as the ending of the Cold War with Russia.

The Hippie Generation was an anti-establishment generation: people who were bored by the 1950s. And how culturally conservative the country was and didn't want to live that type of life themselves. And wanted to be themselves, not be part of the establishment. Even if the Establishment saw them as weird, freakish or even Un-American, all charges that were thrown at them.

In the mid and late 1970s, we had a tax revolt in America, especially in California. People who were tired of big government and high taxes, people who believed that for what they were being taxed. They weren't getting much in return. The strange thing is that even though there was this movement going on against big government, there was another movement going on that started about the same time that pushed for another form of big government, which is where Religious-Right came to prominence and power in America.

Democrats tend to love the 1960s and dislike the 1980s just as much politically. Whereas Republicans tend to hate the 1960s and love the 1980s. But what both sides tend not to be aware of, is that both decades both had one big thing in common, they were both about freedom, not just for some people but the entire country. They just went about trying to accomplish these things in different ways.