ESPN: SportsCentury Wilt Chamberlain

Source:ESPN- with the Philadelphia 76ers.

Source:The Daily Post

“A look back at Wilt, rare footage, 100 point story. Wilt more than the myth.”

From Sports Batman

Mitzir E: ‘The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection’

Source:Mitzir E- Governor Flip Flopper (Republican, Massachusetts) I mean Mitt Romney (understandable mistake) running for President in 2012.

Source:The Daily Post

“Know someone who needs to see video proof? Many of Mitt Romney’s flip-flops all in one video. Video compiled with clips from interviews, news, public appearances, and more. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR USE ACT.

Republican presidential political candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney has been known to say one thing…and then say another.

Includes his changed policy stances over the years on universal health care, the auto bailouts, the bank / Wall Street bailouts, pro-choice (abortion) or pro-life, the minimum wage, gay rights, gun rights & the NRA, immigration / amnesty, gay rights, poverty, government spending & laws, social security & Medicare, the Department of No Child Left Behind, lobbyists / lobbying, campaign donations, economic stimulus, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, global warming, stem cell research, raising taxes, the Federal Reserve / Ben Bernanke, and more.

Includes guest appearances by: Glen Johnson, Sean Hannity, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Fred Thompson, Piers Morgan, Tim Russert, Shannon O’Brien, Larry King, Larry Kudlow, Ted Kennedy, Anderson Cooper, Al Sharpton, and others.”

From Miztir E

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- Barry Goldwater’s Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:Moog Rogue- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Source:The FreeState

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom, saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

Senator Goldwater was essentially arguing that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state, even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally for all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.

Glammed For Beauty: ‘Five Ways To Dress Your White Shirt & Jeans In Boots’

Source:Glammed For Beauty- talking about boots & denim jeans.

Source:The Daily Post

“OPEN ME!! Thanks for watching

Quick look on 5 ways to dress up your jeans and white shirt!”

From Glammed For Beauty

You’ll never ever hear me complaining about see too many sexy women, including the baby-faced cutie in this video, wearing jeans in boots. And that is generally denim jeans in boots, but I’ve seen women wear leather jeans in boots as well. But that look unfortunately isn’t nearly as common as denim jeans in boots. Skinny denims in boots, is probably the most popular casual look, at least with American sexy women right now.

You’ll never hear me say, “you know what, instead of seeing all of these sexy women in their jeans in boots when they are out in about, how about we see more women wearing long dresses. So they don’t show their legs, butts. Especially if they’re well-built with curves and even tall. And instead of seeing these women wearing tight t-shirts and leather jackets with their jeans in boots, so we can see their chess’, they wear long thick sweaters and coats, along with their long dress’, so we can’t check them out at all.”

You’ll never hear me say that, because I love sexy women and especially love sexy women who know they’re sexy and enjoy knowing the rest of the world sees that as well. That is all you see in this video. A beautiful baby-faced sexy woman, who is proud of that and proud to show those aspects of her. And who does that in a stylish and even professional way. Where she could wear this work when she’s doing her shopping, hanging out with her friends, going out with her boyfriend or husband. And in certain cases depending on where she works, could wear this look to work as well. And it’s great to see.

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:Conel Rad- from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign film.

Source:The FreeState

“The entire controversial campaign film banned by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964.”

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice: a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964.

Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968, because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South, that use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well to the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress (both House and Senate) in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. (He wasn’t William F. Buckley) But he ran against leftist big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Abby Wisse Schachter: ‘The New Paternalism’

Source:The Washington Examiner- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (understandable mistake) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:The FreeState

“Paternalism is having a good run these days.

An MSNBC host promotes her network by declaring that “children don’t belong to their parents,” insisting that the community, and especially the government, has to be responsible for all kids. In a follow-up promo, Melissa Harris-Perry doubled down by declaring that all Americans, especially kids, have the “right to … healthcare, education, decent housing and quality food at all times.”

A Howard University student told Sen. Rand Paul after his speech there that he wants “a government that is going to help me.”

We’ve also been treated to a couple of academic heavyweights cheering for the nanny state. President Obama’s former regulation czar Cass Sunstein writes in the New Republic that government paternalism “is your friend.” And Bowdoin sociologist Sarah Conly argues in the New York Times that we should all be grateful for Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban and various other forms of paternalism that we (ahem) enjoy.

This is all so shocking though because it comes from liberals and in reality, championing the state as nanny, father, mother, controller is about as illiberal and anti-democratic as it gets.

Sunstein argues that we should be grateful for government mandates on automobile emissions because the consumer is going to benefit “in the form of gas savings” over the life of the new car. Perhaps we should forgive the man in the ivory tower, but Sunstein is ignoring the obvious reason car buyers have rejected voluntary purchases of higher gas mileage, and lower emissions cars: They cost much, much more. Since the Obama administration wasn’t happy with the private market “nudge” consumers were getting to buy the more expensive, lower emissions cars it legislated a shove by making lower-emissions cars a requirement.

Sunstein also has the audacity to claim that smokers are “happier” to pay exorbitant taxes to feed their habit because “smokers tend to be less happy because they smoke. When they are taxed, they smoke less and might even quit, and they are better off as a result.” President Obama obviously ascribes to this nanny state logic since his new budget proposes a $0.94 increase in cigarette taxes to just under $2.

As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux points out in his review of Simpler, Sunstein’s new book on this topic, “the author assumes without much reflection” that these “nudges” can actually turn out to be unethical or even unconstitutional as a federal appeals court found in the case of FDA-approved warning labels that included grisly images of cancer-ridden lungs.

Conly argues that no one should be against Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban because really, how can it be bad to prevent people from indulging in a 16-ounce syrupy beverage? After all, society as a whole ends up paying for that overindulgence in the form of higher health care demands and costs, so why not just force people to be healthier in the first place?

Conly says that objections to the soda ban are based on a “false” understanding: “We have a vision of ourselves as free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life. Give us complete liberty, and, barring natural disasters, we’ll end up where we want to be. It’s a nice vision, one that makes us feel proud of ourselves.”

Conly declares that social science, behavioral economics and psychology have all proven beyond doubt that this notion of our infallible ability to make good choices is wrong. She and Sunstein have both argued that due to various “scientifically” proven “biases” we are unable to make the best decision every time. And since individuals are lousy at choosing what is in our own self-interest–for our long-term health and well-being–we should therefore have some decisions taken out of our hands completely or given limited choices between government-approved options for the betterment of ourselves and society as a whole.

Aside from the skin-crawly nature of this type of argumentation, doesn’t it seem obvious how infantilizing and anti-democratic this all is? Sunstein and Conly, Harris and the Howard student are all saying that individual adults can’t operate their lives effectively or successfully because they may make poor decisions on occasion. Instead we are supposed to cede our right to make free choices? Is this the reason our founders established a representative democracy?

The answer to both is no, and here are the reasons why.

First, our nation was founded to be a liberal democracy, where our right to the “pursuit” of happiness is protected. Not achieving happiness, mind you, but the means to trying to achieve it. As Niall Ferguson just reminded us Margaret Thatcher defined the “British inheritance” as “a man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master… They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.” America’s “inheritance” is the same.

Second, we didn’t need science to tell us that humans make mistakes and don’t always choose what is best for themselves or others. But whoever supposes that government is any more efficient, effective or better able to discern what is in an individuals’ best interest? No reasonable paternalist could argue that government is completely reliable when it comes to objectively defining problems, without bias or special interests, deciding on the best course of action and then perfectly implementing those policy choices. Please.

Finally, government paternalism offends me as a parent. One of the biggest responsibilities my husband and I took on when we had our kids is to teach them moral, practical, and civic lessons. But at some point, we know we will have to trust that we’ve done as much as we can to inculcate those values, and we will trust our children with the freedom to decide on their own. We will let go, in other words. We don’t expect that our kids will have it easy or that they won’t face disappointments and suffer the pain of mistakes. But that is how they will learn and how they will grow to be adults.

The new paternalists are like parents of eternal toddlers; they never want to let go. Sunstein and company simply don’t trust that individuals can be left to decide what is best. They prefer to believe that they–and only they–have the keys to a “happy” life and that it is only government that can reliably deliver that happiness. Besides the debilitating dependency this has already inculcated (how many receiving food stamps and disability checks admit they are scared to give it up?), it has lower expectations for what it means to be a responsible member of society. When you lower expectations, you get lower outcomes.” 

From The Washington Examiner

Cal Thomas: ‘Back To The 50s’

Source:Cal Thomas- from his Facebook page.

Source:The FreeState

“Addressing a meeting of Planned Parenthood last Friday, President Obama accused pro-lifers of wanting to “turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

Like any decade, the ’50s had its problems — racism, discrimination, sexism — but I’ll defend the ’50s on other grounds, if the president will defend the decade that followed. In the ’50s, for much of mainstream America drugs were something you bought at a pharmacy with a prescription; living together meant getting married first, then having babies; abortion was not legal; our culture wasn’t the enemy; metal detectors were instruments one took to the beach to find loose change and schools and the streets were mostly safe.

It’s “Ozzie and Harriet” vs. Woodstock.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial now in a Philadelphia courtroom indicted on charges that he performed late-term abortions and killed babies born alive during the procedures. Is this the 21 century the president prefers? It is actions like this — not the policies of the ’50s — that have weakened America and harmed the women the president claims to be defending.

How many women has the president talked to who lament their abortions and say they would have made another choice, if they had been shown alternatives? Does the president champion the rights of these women? According to FactCheck.org, as an Illinois state senator, Obama twice voted against the so-called “born-alive” bills that would have “defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a ‘born alive infant’ entitled to legal protection.” He opposed the bills, he said, “as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion.” He chose politics, not lives.

In his speech to Planned Parenthood, the president never mentioned the word “abortion,” preferring to talk instead about “women’s health.” Could it be because 40 years after the historic Roe v. Wade decision, public opinion on abortion has changed very little? For the most part, those who favor it, favor it; those who do not, do not.

The president and Planned Parenthood’s other defenders claim that if the organization were to be denied tax dollars, there would be fewer mammograms, cancer screenings and other services available, especially to poor women. Is this anything more than a distraction from Planned Parenthood’s real purpose — providing abortions?

According to analysis from the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit organization seeking to reduce the number of abortions in New York, Planned Parenthood “provides more abortions than any other organization in the United States, about one of every four U.S. abortions.”

“Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is numbers,” according to a 2011 op-ed for The Hill newspaper written by former clinic director Abby Johnson, “And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. … I was directed to double the numbers of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue.”

Planned Parenthood spends a lot on electing liberal Democrats to office. It can afford to. According to its 2011-2012 annual report, the organization reported more than $1.2 billion in net assets and received a record $542 million in taxpayer funding. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List has compiled the “Planned Parenthood. Read it. 

A 1962 hit song looked back on the stability of the ’50s and the values that shaped the decade. It was called “That’s Old Fashioned.” The Everly Brothers sang it. One of the verses goes…

From the Chicago Tribune 

“In conjunction with WORLD Magazine, Patrick Henry College presents its interview with Cal Thomas as a part of the Newsmaker Interview Series with Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief at WORLD and Distinguished Chair of Journalism and Public Policy at PHC. 

For more information on Patrick Henry College, visit our website at:Patrick Henry College." 

Source:Patrick Henry College- interviewing columnist and author Cal Thomas.

From Patrick Henry College