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

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

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

From The Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

Gustavo Lagos: 'The Best of Ann Coulter'

Source:Gustavo Lagos-

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

Source:Bill Whittle.

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick J. Buchanan: The GOP’s Iran Dilemma

Source:Buchanan Brigade.

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

Mysteries & Scandals: Bugsy Siegel

Source:IMDB- Mysteries & Scandals.

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

From IMDB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:The New Democrat 

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

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

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

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

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

From Michael Jacques 

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

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

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

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

From the Eagle Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:The New Democrat

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

From Uncommon Knowledge

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

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

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