Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens (2001)

Source:Generic Name- Dennis Miller Live in 2001.

Source:The Daily Review

"Opinionated political iconoclast, CHRISTopher Hitchens, talks with, smart aleck, raconteur, Dennis Miller. His 2nd appearance on the show." 

From Generic Name 

“Christopher Hitchens on Dennis Miller Live. (2001)” Originally from Bitcoin Faucets, but the video has been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Source:Bitcoin Faucets - Dennis Miller Live. 

Chris Hitchens, seemed to hate Bill Clinton so much that he almost loved the man. His hatred of Billy Jeff, reminds me of the pastor and activist on the Christian-Right who claims how evil and dangerous homosexuality is, it comes out that he’s gay himself. And has had relationships with adolescent boys. The strongest opponents of homosexuality in several cases have been closeted gays. I guess the thinking that if they act all butch and are strongly against homosexuality in public, no one will ever know they actually speak with a high voice and cheat on their third wives with men. 

Without Bill Clinton, what would Hitchens have to write about in the 1990s? Wait, Tony Blair and New Labour coming to power in Britain? He might hate Tony Blair more than Bill Clinton actually, if that’s possible.

Keep in mind, Chris Hitchens was a Democratic Socialist. Bill Clinton, New Democrat, who moved the Democratic Party from this malaise of Utopians who were never happy about anything except when new news got worst and more people were suffering and they could make a case for more big government. 

I've always thought that Hitch's (not Alfred Hitchcock) main beef with William J. Clinton, was the fact that Clinton wasn't a what they call in Britain, at least, a Social Democrat. That he was a Classical Liberal, who would be center-right, at least in Britain, instead of the left-winger, that Democrats got stereotyped as, at least before 1992. That I think is the main beef that Hitchens had with Billy Jeff. To the point that he calls the man a rapist without much if any evidence to back up that charge. 

Billy Jeff, if he wasn’t a busy and important man and had better things to do other than concern himself with Chris Hitchens, could have sued him for libel and probably have a hell of a case. Hitchens reminds me a little of the Republican political strategist/JFK assassination conspiracy theorist Roger Stone, who officially will never support the Warren Report, even though he’s probably smart enough to. (Jury is still out) And has written books arguing that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had President Kennedy killed.

I’m surprised that Oliver Stone hasn’t picked up on one of Chris Hitchens’s conspiracy theories. And made a movie or documentary about one of them. There are certainly enough dumb people and escaped mental patients, or people who should be committed, that would see that film for the movie to make money. Maybe Oliver Stone and Bill Clinton are friends, or Stone at least is an admirer of Clinton. Perhaps a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign or a member of her husband’s Foundation’s board. 

This is where Hitchens was at least in the 1990s and early 2000s, a left-wing conspiracy theorist, who seemed to be campaigning for the best room at the nuthouse. Before he became a Neoconservative, who wanted Islam destroyed or something. And jumped into President Bush’s back pocket (no more room in the front pockets) and became a cheerleader for the so-called War on Terror and the Iraq War. When Hitchens was focused on something, he wouldn’t let it ago. Until he found something else to bury himself in.

Canan Dian: 'Christopher Buckley- Discusses Christopher Hitchens Life and Mortality'

Source: Canan Dian- Chris Hitchens & Chris Buckley.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Christopher Buckley reviews "Mortality" by Christopher Hitchens"  

From Canan Dian

What I like most about Christopher Hitchens is why he never would have made a very successful politician, because he has this big habit of always saying what he thought and what he knew. And he didn’t give a damn what others thought about it. His consistency for the most part and the on exception to that being how his national security and foreign policy views changed after 9/11, I believe are unparalleled. 

Chris Hitchens wasn't just an anti-Christian, or anti-Christian-Right radical on the Far-Left, but he was a true Atheist. He didn’t bash the Christian-Right for their positions on homosexuality, women’s place in the world, censorship, while he defended Muslims for believing that women and gays should be second-class citizens. He critiqued and attacked religious extremism wherever he saw it.

Politically, I’m not sure I have ever had much in common with Chris Hitchens. I’ve never been a Democratic Socialist, or a Neoconservative. I don’t know of many other people who’ve gone from one end to the other politically like that. But I’ve always respected his consistency especially with his Atheism. 

If Hitchens was alive today would be treated like a bigot by the New-Left in America, similar to how Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are now treated. As being anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern and so-forth. He was anti-Muslim, but he was also anti-Christian and anti every other religion. He saw religion as a dangerous force in the world and with his new neoconservative leanings and perhaps would have if he could had religion outlawed in America. Not sure about that, but he was a true militant Atheist.

I believe political and current affairs writers should be judged on their ability to learn, grasp and to be consistent. Do they say and write things that add up and where you could at least make a good case for their beliefs. Or do they just write for their team and over hype all the positive things about their side, while underplaying the low points of their side. And are they consistent, or do they contradict themselves. Do they bash religion, while only concentrating on one type of religion, or are they a true Atheist who doesn’t like religion in general. And will critique negative aspects of religion wherever they see it. Do they bash big government on one side, while praising it on another, but without calling it big government. 

Chris Hitchens, meets at least all of my standards as a great current affairs writer. Because he was someone who learned, who understood facts and made his arguments based on them. And adapted when he was wrong and because of these things and many others he’s still missed today and will be for a long time.

S.E. Cupp: 'Yes, The Benghazi Hearings Are Political. So What?'

Source:The New York Daily News. Also known as The New York Daily Garbage, for their quality  of reporting.

Source:The New Democrat

The great CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow on his newscast See it Now, one night devoted his whole show to the Joe McCarthy hearings in the Senate. And he said that and I'm paraphrasing here, "one of the purposes of Congressional hearings (referring to the Senate McCarthy hearings) is to find out the truth and how government operates and to get information and facts about proposed legislation." Would someone please tell me what we learned at the House Benghazi hearing yesterday about that Benghazi tragedy? Not all tragedies are criminal. There are times when mistakes are made and people are unprepared that result in a tragedy. And House Republicans can talk about coverup all they want, so we really don't know what happened at Benghazi. But if that is the case then they're horrible lawyers and investigators, because it would be almost impossible to cover up a tragedy like that today.

All we got from the Thursday House Benghazi hearing was House Republicans giving Hillary Clinton the Christmas gift of the year. Even though she really had to earn it by devoting ten hours of her life to those Republicans. Most of them not being in Congress when she left to become Secretary of State in 2009. The gift being 10 hours of free publicity on national TV. Where she looked like the responsible adult, explaining to little children what can happen when you forget to close the door at night, or leave the door open during a big rain or snowstorm. And in her case when you have a U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya and you don't have enough security in an area where the host government can't protect their foreign visitors. The Benghazi tragedy happened, because our embassy over there was undermanned and unprepared, especially as it relates to the security. But we knew all of this two years ago.

Human Events: Ann Coulter: 'Save Us From Paul Ryan And The Kemp Boys'

Source:Human Events- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, R, Wisconsin- Incoming Speaker of The House

Source:The New Democrat

Apparently to be considered a Conservative with the Tea Party/Far-Right base on the Republican Party, you have to hate Barack Obama. See him as a criminal, be willing to shut down the U.S. Government to get exactly what you want and repeal at any cost anything that the Obama Administration was able to get passed through Congress in their first two years. On policy grounds Representative Paul Ryan the most likely incoming Speaker of the House, is inline the Tea Party on 99% of the issues that they care about. But he's more interested in tactics, vision and governing, then fighting the good fights and losing badly. Representative Ryan, is a legislature. He came to the House of Representatives to legislate and accomplish certain policy objectives. The Tea Party, is not about governing, because to govern in Washington especially in a divided government you have to work with the other party.

A Speaker of the House, who can't work with a President of the other party, the Minority Leader of the House when controversial legislation has to be passed and they don't have the votes to pass it on their own side, who can't work with the Senate Leadership regardless of which party runs it, won't be Speaker for very long. Because the job of the Speaker is to govern and not just pass legislation that gets blocked, or voted down in the Senate, or even it makes it out of the Senate and gets vetoed by the President. The Speaker, is not a political activist, but a the leader of their House Caucus and the leader of the House as well. He's not there simply to do whatever the most vocal and active political activists in their party want to do, but to govern. And again if your party doesn't control the presidency, you have to work with the other party in order to do that.

Paul Ryan, by far in a way is the best candidate for Speaker that House Republicans have. Wouldn't be my choice for Speaker as a Democrat, but just at the House Republican side right now, I'm not sure they have anyone who comes close. Paul Ryan, doesn't need the Tea Party, or to be a member of the House. Doesn't want to be President, or run for the Senate, or even Governor of Wisconsin. There are plenty of other jobs that he could be doing in Washington, or back home in Wisconsin. Unlike John Boehner, he doesn't need the House Republican Conference. But they need him if they want to be looked at as a responsible governing party again. That can take two steps forward without stepping on one of their own toes. Or put their gun back in their holster without shooting off one of their toes. A Speaker Paul Ryan, would mean that the House could function again and that Congress could function again. Because the Senate would know there's now an adult in charge of the House.

Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens (1999)

Source:The Informed Atheist-

Source:The Daily Review

Chris Hitchens, doing a great impersonation of Ayn Rand on Dennis Miller. And I believe he wasn’t a fan of her, but what he’s saying is that you always go off the best evidence available and that you should always do your own thinking. Hum, what part of that do I disagree with? Nothing! Which I guess is what happens when you come from parents who aren’t religious at all. When you have a mother who at best is an Agnostic and your father is a flaming Atheist. Perhaps to the left of both Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher combined. Whose totally against religion whether it comes from the East or West. Always trust yourself and the real evidence in front of you. And if you can’t do that, then you’re probably not very bright, or you have self-confidence issues. And perhaps you need someone to babysit you and do your thinking for you.

As far as Bill Clinton, Billy Jeff was Chris Hitchens biggest target in the 1990s. Hitchens, was a self-described Democratic Socialist and essentially believed that everyone had the right to live off of the welfare state and not have to work for themselves. Clinton, being a Center-Left New Democrat, believed that physically and mentally able people on Welfare should work. And that government could help them improve themselves so they can get themselves a good job. But at the end of the day people who could and needed income to survive were going to work for it, unless they could get someone else to pay their bills for them voluntarily. Clinton transformed the Democratic Party from more of a social democratic big government party from the 1970s and 1980, to a positive government party. That wanted to use government to improve people’s lives, but not run them for them.

As far as what they’re talking about with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Hey, today’s Progressives always say that America should be more like France. Well they got that with Bill Clinton. Not sure you be elected President of the French Republic without at least one sex scandal in your background. You would be looked down upon as being too conservative and responsible or something. Clinton had a phonebook of sex scandals in his career and his popularity only went up as a result. He served six terms as Governor of Arkansas and then two terms as President of the United States. You could at the very least argue that the second job was a promotion. I don’t think you go that far in life and I’m not talking about flying from Little Rock to Washington, but the jobs he had without being popular. So Billy Jeff’s sex scandals only seemed to help him.
Source:The Informed Atheist

CBS News Special Report: Archibald Cox Pre-Saturday Night Massacre

Source:CBS News- Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe President Richard Nixon’s firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald, was essentially an admission of guilt. That whatever credibility that President Nixon had left in this affair was now gone. Because the President was essentially telling the country that Cox and his staff are on to something and they better stop him before the Cox team finds out what happened here. The Cox office was put together by President Nixon’s Attorney General Elliot Richardson to find out what happened in Watergate.

The Cox Special Prosecutor’s offices, was not put together to bring down President Nixon and his administration. Richard Nixon and his team with their behavior and that Nixon recorded what he did and who he talked to, brought himself down. The Cox office was responsible to investigate crimes that President Nixon originally had nothing to do with. The break in of Democratic Headquarters in Washington in 1972. But if Watergate breaks, then so would other criminal activities that the White House was also involved in. Because people would have talked to save themselves.

The Nixon White House knew that the people who actually did the Watergate burglary, had real evidence and information that could be used against the White House in other matters to save themselves. That they had connections with people who were involved in other criminal activities of the Nixon White House as they had to do with other break ins. That is the main reason that Nixon wanted Cox shut down. I believe the White House knew that Cox and his team would not just find out about what happened during Watergate, but perhaps about the other activities like the plumbers unit.

The plumbers did other break ins to find out information about Nixon opponents. Like Daniel Elsberg and people in the national media. The Watergate break in, really was a third-rate burglary by high school drunks who couldn’t find anything better to do on a Saturday night. And decided to break in to the Watergate Hotel. (Or so it seems) But if Watergate broke, then so would other illegal activities that the Nixon White House was also involved in. And the White House couldn’t afford that.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: 'Anything Goes With Chris Buckley'

Source:Hoover Institution- The great political humorist Christopher Buckley, talking to Peter Robinson.

Source:The Daily Review

"In this wide-ranging interview, bouncing from the comic to the serious and back again, Christopher Buckley comments on the new media, politics, Republicans, the war, spending, McCain, Obama, and American life. After rating the speechifying of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, he concludes with reflections on life with William F. Buckley."

From the Hoover Institution

Chris Buckley, (and I call him Chris because we’ve never met before) is one of my favorite political satirists along with P.J. O’Rourke, Dennis Miller and now Bill Maher. Since he’s ditched the Far-Left when it comes to free speech and other big government social issues and is still one of the best critics of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. I like Buckley, because like George Carlin who makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. He’s not John Fugelsang, who only makes fun of right-wingers when it comes to politics. Buckley makes fun of politicians and Washington in general. I mean it’s a city that doesn’t need any heat and humidity, even though we get a lot of it every year, because of all the hot air that comes out of our 535 member Congress. That has both a House and a Senate.

American politics is very easy to be make fun of. You can literally make a career of doing it and a lot of people like Chris Buckley have. And even if you come to politics with a strong ideological bent and you have a good sense of humor, you’re denying yourself a lot of great material and perhaps employment and financial opportunities if you just concentrate on one side of the aisle. I mean how you only make fun of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and never take a shot at Dennis Kucinich. Whose the president of the Republic of Dreamland and sees a world that only exist in make-believe. Where there’s no violence, or ignorance, or poor people. Who believes the old hippie saying of Give Peace a Chance should be the our national foreign policy. And that the use of force is never an option even when we’re under attack. “If we don’t hit them back, maybe they’ll get bored and go away.”

Again, something I love about Chris Buckley who I see as a non-partisan political humorist, he’s someone who at least leans right if he’s not a Conservative and yet he looks at politics and politicians for what they are. The George W. Bush Administration, comes into office as what they called compassionate conservatives (as if Conservatives aren’t compassionate) and lives up to that as best as possible. And spends more money than a convention of Irish drunken sailors could spend at their favorite Irish bar. With the two unpaid for wars and the seven-hundred-billion-dollar Medicare expansion, all of this borrowed. And he didn’t like that about President Bush, as well as going to war on bogus evidence (to be real nice) and the mismanagement of that war even after it was found there were no WMD in that country. And those weapons were probably destroyed by the United Nations, or our own people in the late 1990s. Again, how you not make fun of a President like that?

If you live in Washington and are involved in it politically in some way nationally whether you work, or write about it, it is really the last place you should try to take yourself, or people around you especially your allies too seriously. I’m a Liberal Democrat and I could write something negative and funny about Hillary Clinton everyday. As well as her husband, not that I don’t like Hillary and that I still don’t love President Clinton. But lets face it, they’re both great political characters. Hillary, doesn’t know who she it until she sees the latest poll. Bill, still hasn’t gotten the memo that he’s no longer President and that he’s still ineligible to run for President again still tries to run everything. And I could write something negative and funny everyday about the United States Circus, better known as the Republican Party. And I think that is where Chris Buckley goes. He makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. Regardless of political affiliation.