CSPAN: Senator Rand Paul at Howard University

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking at Howard University in Washington.

"Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke to students at Howard University about the Republican Party's outreach efforts to young people and minorities." 

From Jay Argonaut

This is actually very smart politics by Senator Paul here and I'll explain why. African-Americans, including by left-wing African-Americans have been stereotyped, at least since the 1990s as a community of leftists that expect the Federal Government to do everything for them and want government to just give them things and take care of them, to make up for everything that the United Kingdom and the United States has done to them, since the 1st African was kidnapped and forced to live in North America as slaves, in the 1600s. 

The truth is, African-Americans voted Republican, perhaps not as a majority, but the Republican Party was very competitive, at least in that community, all the way through Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It's really not until George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign of 1988 and his reelection campaign of 1992, where you started to see the African-American community as a large and reliable voting bloq of the Democratic Party, because of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right influence in the Republican Party. 

You go back to the 1960s with Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, or go way before that with Frederick Douglas, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell today, there's always been a conservative or classical liberal movement in the African-American community. 

Of course there are Socialists and Black Nationalists in the African-American community. But you can say that about every racial community in America. There's also a Christian-Right in the African-American community, like with European-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons. 

But there's always been a core faction of African-Americans that believe in limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and property rights (economic and personal) and I believe those are the folks that Senator Paul was trying to reach at Howard University.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Examiner: 'Competitive Federalism Can Restore Government's Credibility'

Source:Washington Examiner- Newspaper.

"Among the most serious threats to the continued health of the American republic is the extraordinarily low esteem in which the public holds the federal government. And who can blame them when Congress and President Obama seem locked in perpetual partisan warfare, even as millions of Americans have given up on finding jobs, the economy bounces along in the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and the national debt soars to previously unimagined heights.

What is to be done? A coalition of state-based conservative think tanks led by the Oklahoma-based Liberty Foundation is advancing an old idea that if implemented could revolutionize American governance. The idea is "competitive federalism," which the coalition defines as "the powerful harnessing of our tri-partite sovereignty system that allows states to compete with each other over a broad range of issues to provide citizens with the best value goods and services at the lowest cost." Think of the difference between having only one place to buy food versus having 50.

To illustrate, imagine two scenarios: In the first, Congress and the president decide that trillions of dollars must be spent on a centralized health care insurance program managed by Washington bureaucrats. In the second, Congress and the president instead decide to return to the states the hundreds of billions of tax dollars previously spent in this arena by Washington, along with encouragement to assume the related responsibilities for insuring care and coverage.

Now, if the first scenario results in a bureaucratic monstrosity in which health insurance costs skyrocket, doctor shortages spread and the quality of care plunges, everybody in the country will suffer. In the second scenario, there can be as many as 50 distinct approaches to health care insurance. In states with failing systems, residents can pressure their officials to adopt reforms along the lines of states with successful approaches.

Under which scenario are the smallest number of people likely to suffer? And which scenario would be the most responsive to demands for reform? Would more people receive quality health care under the first or second scenario? Most Americans would likely choose the second scenario in answer to all three questions. Lest anybody think these considerations are merely theoretical speculation, recall that the founders based the Constitution on the same concept. As Publius observed in the Federalist Papers, ours is "a federal, and not a national constitution." As a result, federal powers are "few and defined," while those of the states are "numerous and indefinite," encompassing "all the objects" that "concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people," Publius wrote.

To put it in the most practical possible terms, if Californians choose a system that provides poor quality, only the taxpayers in the Golden State have to pay for it, while residents of states that choose better systems only have to pay for theirs. When the federal government imposes a uniform solution like Obamacare, all 300 million Americans pay the cost. Expect to hear more competitive federalism thinking as the federal government staggers along on its present disastrous course." 

From the Washington Examiner

The Daily Telegraph: 'Margaret Thatcher: The Woman Who Made Britain Great Again'

Source:The Daily Telegraph- Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-90)

"Almost 25 years have passed since Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street, and yet the full scale of her achievement is still surprisingly hard to set out. So completely has her legacy shaped modern Britain, so fully have she and her ideas been woven into its fabric, that it can be hard to appreciate the depth of our debt to this most extraordinary of individuals. For she was not one of those politicians who had the good fortune to go with the grain of her times. She was a leader who wrenched this nation from the path of demoralisation, diminishment and... 

From The Daily Telegraph 

Margaret Thatcher, in some ways was very lucky because she arrived on the seen as first Leader of The Opposition in the United Kingdom in the mid 1970s and then of course Prime Minister in 1979 at the perfect time when Britain was down and when socialism was not working and when the British were looking for a different message. Not so much different from what the United States was going through in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan came onto the scene.

Margaret Thatcher, didn’t set out to destroy socialism, but empower Brits to have the freedom to take care of themselves and take on more responsibility in governing their own lives. And handing more power down from the central government in Britain to the British people themselves. 

Maggie Thatcher, coming to power in Britain was truly a Conservative Revolution from when the Socialists in the Labour Party had all the power in Britain, to a time where there was a new message in Britain, that was conservative and getting government out of the business of running people’s lives.

I believe Maggie Thatcher, would be called a Northeastern, or Bob Dole even Conservative Republican in America. Someone who was in favor of having a public safety net. But that it wasn’t the job of government to take care of physically and mentally able people for their entire lives to help people who truly need it, but to help them help themselves. To put physically and mentally able people to work. Help people who are out-of-work get back to work, or go to work for the first time in their lives. As well as move Britain away from Marxist state economics and create a larger private sector in Britain.

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

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

Tania Ayde: 'Bugsy Siegel & The Flamingo Hotel'

Source:Tania Ayde- Jewish mobster and perhaps the creator of Las Vegas, Benjamin Bugsy Siegel.

Source:The Daily Post

"A film by Tania De La Cruz

Directed by Tania De La Cruz & David Villapando

Edited and Written by Tania De La Cruz

Interviews provided by:Biography. " 

From Tania Ayde 

Benjamin Bugsy Siegel was an interesting mobster. Italian, Irish or in Bugsy’s case Jewish, because he could’ve been anything he wanted to be. Because of his intelligence and charm. But because he lacked basic discipline and patience he went very far, but in a short time. But was only around for a short time. Being killed by the mob leadership in his early forties after being killed in his Los Angeles home by perhaps both the Italian and Jewish mafia’s and their leaderships. 

If you’re familiar with the film Bugsy from 1991, where Warren Beatty plays Bugsy Siegel, according to the film Bugsy’s bosses fly him back to Los Angeles from some supposed meeting. But the only meeting that Bugsy went to was his assassination, after the mob leadership decided that Bugsy was no longer worth the investment with all the money Bugsy spent to build the Las Vegas casinos and that even though Bugsy was very effective as a hitman for the Italian and Jewish mafias, as well as an enforcer, he was no longer worth the investment. Because of how bad a businessman he was. And that he needed to be taken out before he cost his bosses more money. 

Bugsy, again, had many good personal qualities about him. (Even for a murderer) But he lacked discipline and realism. He was too idealistic and too much of a dreamer, to survive as a mobster long-term. Whether you like it or not the Jewish and Italian Mafias’s, were business’s and didn’t want to associate with people who lost them money. Which is how they say Busgy in the end.

The mafia were worried that Bugsy would end up in prison or talking to police, or whatever. That he was too big of a gamble (even in Las Vegas) for them and needed to be dealt with. But without Bugsy Benjamin Siegel and Jimmy Hoffa, Las Vegas is not what it is today. A big vibrant city that it is in the Southwest and the entertainment capital of America. That is just a half-hour flight from Los Angeles. Where Americans all over the country go to everyday to have a good time. 

You take the criminal mindset away from Ben Siegel and you also discipline him without losing his imagination and vision, which is what created the Las Vegas that we know today and I think we’re talking about a brilliant businessman. But of course we’ll never know that.

NFL Films: NFL 1980-AFC Divisional-Oakland Raiders @ Cleveland Browns: Last Drive

Source:NFL Films- Raiders DB Mike Davis's famous game-winning INT.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Raiders at Browns 1980 playoffs" 

From John Morgami 

The Cleveland Browns of the late 1970s early 1980s were called the Cardiac Kids for a good reason. They trailed late in games a lot and many times by two scores and would have to either score once very quickly to win, or have to score twice with like five minutes left in the game. 

The Browns defense was not horrible and perhaps not even bad, but certainly not dominant which is what it became under Marty Shottenheimer in the mid and late 1980s. And as a result they would get into shootouts and when they play good teams with good defenses, would fall behind late and have to make great comebacks to win. 

The 1980 Raiders were a very good if not great all around football team. That could score a lot of points and simply shut teams downs. As they did in the AFC Playoffs and in the Super Bowl that season. The Browns were simply beaten by a better all around football team. 

I think Raiders offensive guard Gene Upshaw has the best quote about this game, or certainly about Raiders DB Mike Davis's game-winning INT against the Browns. He said when talking about Mike Davis's bad hands and inability to catch the ball: "Mike Davis, who couldn't catch a cold barefoot in the snow in Alaska, ends up making the game-winning play for us." 

CBS Sports: NBA 1980- NBA Finals-Game 5- Philadelphia 76ers @ Los Angeles Lakers: Julius vs Kareem

Source:CBS Sports- with coverage of the 1980 NBA Finals.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Kareem had 40 pts, 15 rebounds and 4 blocks. This is also the game where Kareem injured his ankle leaving the stage open for Magic in Game 6. The injury occurs at 3:40. Kareem comes back at the start of the fourth period and hits heroic shots to win the game. Magic’s performance might be the most memorable thing to come out of this series but equally, if nor more, impressive was Kareem’s dominance in the first five games. If not for those clutch shots, the Lakers probably wouldn’t have the 3-2 series lead which provided them the opportunity to knockout the Sixers in game 6.

Also included a couple of smooth Dr. J and Dawkins plays here.”

From Fish

I think Rod Hundley has the most interesting comment in this video. When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with the ankle injury and he says he doesn’t believe that Lakers can beat the 76ers without Kareem. Well, of course that is exactly what the Lakers did in game 6. They beat the 76ers without Kareem who was home with the ankle injury. Now, probably no one would’ve predicted that, but that’s exactly what happened.

6’9 Magic Johnson, whose a point guard normally, filled in for Kareem at center in game 6. And the Lakers win that game to clinch the 1980 NBA Finals. Now no one including Hot Rod knew how great of a player that Magic was at this point. And I’m not sure Magic didn’t either, in defense of Hot Rod.

As far as this game, the 76ers had no one who could defend Kareem. And most of the NBA didn’t either in 1980. And this Lakers team had so much talent around Kareem, including Magic, but Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and others, that if you paid a lot of attention to Kareem, Kareem would set up his other teammates the whole game and the other players would’ve beaten the 76ers. The Lakers didn’t have anyone who could stop Julius Erving, but they had two or three guys who could cover The Doctor in stretches and make him work for his points: Jamal Wilkes, Michael Cooper and Magic, at different points of the game.

This was a great finals for several reasons. The two best players in the game at that time, Kareem and The Doctor. The two best teams in the league, 76ers and Lakers. And they both matched up well with each other. They had to cover each other and could make the other team work on offense and defense. Without any real weakness’s on other team. Other than the 76ers not having true quality starting center who played both ends of the court real well. Caldwell Jones was primarily a shot blocker and rebounder. Darryl Dawkins was primarily a scorer, but who wasn’t very consistent there. And that was the difference with Kareem being able to dominate either of the 76ers centers.

John Kass: ‘Will Tolerance For The Faithful Be Tolerated?’

Source:Chicago Tribune- columnist John Kass.

“With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.” 

From Real Clear Politics 

I already talked about this in my piece about what Jack Hunter wrote on so-called social conservatives, that you can see here:The FreeState. 

As I pointed out in that piece when it comes to Conservatives and conservatism, I guess it depends on what you mean by Conservative and conservatism. Conservative to me is about conserving. And when you’re talking about politics and government, a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution for everyone. Not just Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other European-Americans, or just for Protestants, or just for straights, but everyone, including gays.

If you really are a Conservative, I don’t think the question shouldn’t be: “What’s the conservative position on same-sex-marriage?” The question should be: “What’s the Federal Government’s role if any here?”

Marriage has traditionally a state issue. I don’t think you change that because we now have states that recognize gays as Americans and human beings who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else and therefor it’s now time for Uncle Sam to step and just regulate marriage for the entire country, but perhaps other social issues that have traditionally been handled by the states. For the simple reason that we’re a Federal Republic that has sovereign states that get to regulate social policy within their own state.

Of course you can be a Conservative and say that same-sex-marriage is wrong and homosexuality is bad as a whole. But you can’t make a constitutional conservative case for the Federal Government stepping in and taking over functions that have always been left to the states. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.