NFL Films: NFL 1983- The Story of The 1983 NFL Season

Source:The Daily Review

I believe the story of 1983 when it comes to the NFL is the explosion of the passing age and revolution in the NFL. The NFL was moving away from ball control power football where you run the ball 3-5 times or more even when defenses are looking for that and pass only to keep the defense somewhat honest and give them something else to think about. (And perhaps give your running backs a break) To an era where if teams didn’t throw more than they ran, they were balanced at least and had both a good running game and a passing game. The 1980s was a great decade for the quarterback. It was a time when they weren’t just the most important player on the team, but now they were stars putting up all sorts of great stats.

The 1980s was a decade for the NFL where you saw a lot of great quarterbacks including three that were all drafted in 1983 that are now in the Hall of Fame. Of course Dan Marino, John Elway and Jim Kelly. But you had other great quarterbacks that were drafted pre-83 that are also in the Hall of Fame. Dan Fouts and the quarterback of the 1980s Joe Montana. Eric Dickerson, one of the top 3-5 running backs of all-time and I believe the best running back in the 1980s at least far as running the ball was drafted in 1983 by the Anaheim Rams (as I call them). Running back Curt Warner, was also drafted in 1983 and without the injuries he’s probably in the Hall of Fame as well. And great receivers like Mark Clayton, Mark Duper, both from the Miami Dolphins, Art Monk the best receiver other than Jerry Rice in that era, was a big part of the 1980s as well.

The NFL was moving away from power run ball control possession passing with the occasional threat of a deep pass, to an era that threw the ball everywhere. Short, middle and deep and threw the ball a lot. It was a passing decade with at least two different types of passing games that were prominent in that decade. The possession passing game of the San Francisco 49ers, perhaps better known as the West Coast Offense. And what I call at least the Vertical Spread Offense. Where you’re always looking deep on every pass play, but you work the whole field with multiple receivers and force the defense to cover the whole field against you. Which was run by the Los Angeles Raiders that won the Super Bowl in 1983 and the San Diego Chargers.

But this is all before you get to the two great teams of 1983 that played in the Super Bowl. By far the two most consistent teams in 1983 that of course being the Los Angeles Raiders and Washington Redskins. Both teams had great offenses that scored a lot of points both through the air and on the ground. But the Raiders were dominant on defense and simply punished teams on defense with their two press corners Lester Hays and Mike Haines, plus they could get to the quarterback with just their DL. And they could add in outside linebacker Ted Hendricks. (Arguably the best all around OLB of all-time) And the Redskins simply struggled on offense most of that game and had a hard time dealing with the Raiders speed on defense.

Not that defense was non-existent in the NFL in 1983, (Roger Goodell wasn’t Commissioner yet) but the story of the 1983 NFL season was all the new offense in the league. The great passing games, all the points, every good team in the NFL that year every good team seemed to have at least one great running back and a great wide receiver and at least a Pro Bowl caliber quarterback. You had several great offensive minds leading their teams and still leading their teams. Like Don Coryell with the Chargers, Tom Flores with the Raiders, Joe Gibbs with the Redskins, Bill Walsh with the 49ers and several others. I believe 1983 is where we really see the influence of the American Football League on the NFL and it made it a great all around season for the league.

Goldie Hawn: Housesitter (1992)

Source:TBS- Goldie Hawn is laid back.

Source:The Daily Review

I’ll be one of the first to admit that Housesitter is not a great movie and perhaps not a very good movie. It was pretty funny though at least Goldie Hawn was pretty funny it, but I guess she’s funny in anything because she’s Goldie Hawn. One of the best comedians and comedic actress’s of all-time. But Housesitter is also one of those movies that guys such as myself will watch even if it’s not a very good movie, if it has a beautiful sexy women in it. And in Goldie Hawn’s case a hot sexy women in it. This scene with Goldie going up to rural Massachusetts to check out a house that she knew of because of a guy she slept with the night before that she met for the first time (played by Steve Martin) told her about this place. Which sort of shows the quality of this movie, is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Checking out Goldie in those Levis and the suede boots as well with the tank and the coverage of her in that outfit, with her body, the cute butt and the beautiful legs and everything, sort of reminds me of The Dukes of Hazzard where you don’t have to be a fan of that show to be a fan of Daisy Duke (played by Catherine Bach) on that show. Just seeing her in it and seeing her like that is really all the motivation to see that movie. Goldie Hawn is a true Hollywood Goddess. Very funny, a hell of an actress, gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, beautiful body, who wears Levis about as well as any women can. And if you get through lets say the first ten-minutes or so of Housesitter before Goldie appears, I believe she might keep you in the movie the rest of the way.
Source:TBS

Notes On Liberty: Brandon Christensen: 'Trying to Make Sense of Left & Right'

Source:The New Democrat- as shocking as this may sound: Liberal vs Conservative, is not Left vs Right.

Source:The New Democrat

"Ok. Clearly we need to be using terms that mean the same things to both of us. It’s your thread so tell me what constitutes ‘The American Right’ and what constitutes ‘The American Left’. Once we have a common understanding of terminology we can resume the discussion.

I have been working on a post about this very topic, and this conversation is helping me immensely. Thanks.

First, I think there is a distinction that has to be made between the ‘ideological’ and the ‘political’. The ideological rests atop a higher tier than does the political, like a pyramid. The ideological tier houses philosophical and moral insights, which are produced through the academy and in think tanks. The political tier houses organizations dedicated to parties (I think that factions and parties are two different components of a society, and that factions represent a tier below the ideological and above the political).

The American Right is ideological. The GOP is political. (Factions would consist of actors like bureaucracies, trade unions, industrialists, banks, medical doctors, etc., but can also be used to describe intra-party, or coalitional, differences) The American Right is currently home to three broad ideologies: neo-conservatism (elite and moderate), libertarianism (elite and radical), and traditionalism (populist and radical). I emphasize ‘currently’ because neoconservatives and libertarians were at one point Leftist factions in US history, and could easily end up there again in the near future. In many post-colonial and post-socialist societies, for example, both of these ideologies are considered to be on the Left.

The American Left is currently home to three broad ideologies: fascism, communism, and racism. Just kidding! The three ideologies are, I would argue: New Deal liberalism (elite and moderate), technocratic liberalism (elite and radical), and progressivism (populist and radical).

New Deal liberals and neo-conservatives are only moderate because they are dominated by Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers dominate the population at the moment. Libertarians and the technocrats are broadly younger and more cerebral (hence the radicalism). Traditionalism and progressivism are ideologies for the vulgar mob, of course.

Ideology, using the pyramid analogy, trickles down from the top tier into the factional and political tiers. This is just how it works in societies governed by laws rather than by men. Libertarians have been dominating the ideological discussion for the last 30 years or so, and the technocrats have been playing defense, largely because they are politically aligned – wrongly, of course – with socialism’s failure, but also because technocrats are just libertarians who don’t have the chutzpah to become non-conformists.

Successful politicians from the Democrat Party have been trying to balance their New Deal liberalism with the insights of their technocratic betters, but have been calling themselves ‘progressives’ because of the populist narrative and the fact that they need the votes of the vulgar mob to be successful.

I already don’t like this because I don’t think the Left deserves to be considered ‘liberal’ at all, and there is also the shortcoming of being strictly American in scope. We have got to think in internationalist terms when we discuss power and liberty. NOL has tried to hash this whole issue out before, by the way, and numerous times." 

From Notes On Liberty

I agree with the commentator on this NOL piece somewhat. The Democratic Party and Republican Party are political parties. (You don't say. Now tell me something that I don't know.) I say that only because a political party is not the same thing as a political faction and movement. 

Political parties are in the business only to win elections, to stay in power, and gain political power. Political factions are in the business to advance their movements. And generally they'll be home to a political party, but in many cases they'll only be a faction in it and generally not even a majority faction. 

I don't think there's ever been an America right or an American left. They're different political factions on the Right that have things in common with each other, but they have real differences as well. People who I you would call Classical Conservatives or Constitutional Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians, the William Buckley's and Barry Goldwater's of the world, have things in common with Libertarians (classical and anarcho) but they also have things in common with the Christian-Right, people who would be called Christian Nationalists today. But they have enough disagreements that keep them from ever becoming part of the same political movement. 

On the so-called American Left, you have center-left Progressives, FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ Democrats. But then you have the Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) people who would be called Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders movement, the Green Party, who share similar goals as let's say Progressive Democrats, but want more government involvement, more spending, especially from the Federal level, more government programs, more taxes, to deal with the economic issues of today. Whereas the Progressive believes in progress and is a lot ideological. And tends to believe the best way to deal with economic issues and problems and help people who are struggling, is to empower people to help themselves, even if that means more government investment. 

The modern Republican Party still has a large conservative wing. But it has a neoconservative wing in it as well, people who are a lot more hawkish as it relates to foreign policy, national security, and domestic security, but a lot more progressive than the Barry Goldwater's of the world on economic policy. 

The modern Democratic Party has a progressive wing in it. But it's always had a socialist wing in it, Democratic Socialists from Henry Wallace in the 1930s and 40s, George McGovern in the 1960s and 70s, Dennis Kucinich in the 1990s and 2000s, Bernie Sanders today. But it's always had a center-right, a classical liberal (not leftist) wing in it, from the Thomas Jefferson's from when the party was founded, to John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, and Bill Clinton from the 1990s. 

I think one of the problems with Americans politics is that a lot of Americans don’t understand it. And people get labeled with political labels that don’t reflect their political ideology accurately for good and bad. The so-called mainstream media is a big cause of this problem, because many times they don’t understand the political labels, factions, and ideologies that they talk and report about.

For example, if you believe Barack Obama is a foreigner who was born in another country with no real proof of his American citizenship, you get labeled as a Conservative. Even though no real Conservative would want to have anything to do with the Birthers. Because of course they believe the President was born in Hawaii. 

If you believe in political correctness and that any critical speech that is directed at any minority group or minority in America is somehow not only a form of bigotry and hate, but that it should be censored and that government should step in shut down that type of speech and punish the people who express it, you get labeled as a Liberal. Even though the First Amendment was written by the Founding Liberals of America who gave us Freedom of Speech. And Freedom of Speech is and has always been the first Liberal Value.

If you look at the American political spectrum it goes from the Far-Left where you have Marxists who are Far-Left as people can get and then move a little right and you’ll find Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats. To Progressives who are still on the mainstream Left in America if you think of the New Deal and Great Society and move right from that. And you’ll find where I am the center-right where Liberals (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) sit. 

Then move to the Center-Right of the Republican Party and you’ll find the Conservatives. A bit further right than that and you’ll find the Libertarians. Go Far-Right and you’ll find the Christian-Right in America. Who want their religious beliefs and lifestyle enforces by government on the rest of the country.

The reason why Liberals are center-right and Conservatives are also center-right, because both sides as hard as this is to believe, both believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, the U.S. Constitution, equal rights, equal justice, individual freedom, property rights. But where they differ, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Which is what being a Conservative is all about. Whereas Liberals believe in moving forward.

The reason why Liberals and Conservatives tend to look bad the with average American voter lets say who is not a political junky, or a hyper-partisan and tend to vote based on who they believe best represents them and not their party, is because the fringes on both sides who see bipartisanship and governing as surrender. And who promote big statist views on both sides get labeled either as Liberal, or Conservative based on what side of the political aisle they’re on. 

According to the mainstream media, today’s Liberals are big government Socialists, or Statists who think people are stupid and need big government to manage both their economic and personal affairs for them. And Conservatives are people who want America to police and dominate the world and replace the U.S. Constitution with their version of the Bible. And throw all poor people off of public assistance, cut off all immigration and are all bigots.

The facts are Liberals are center-right. Everywhere outside of America, in the developed world, Liberals are seen as center-right, not center-left or far-left. People who believe in freedom and opportunity for all. Again individual freedom, plus social justice. Using government to expand freedom, not government dependence. 

The real statists in America, are not Liberals or Conservative. But Socialists on the Left, who want a government big enough to manage people's affairs for them. And Christian-Nationalists on the Right, who want to throw out the U.S, Constitution and our form of government and replace it with a fundamentalist, religious form of government. But they get called liberal or conservative by the media, as well people from these statist movements, who self-describe their politics as liberal or conservative. Hopefully this lessens the confusion about what liberal and conservative means in America. 

The Lip TV: 'Whitey: The United States of America V. James J. Bulger'

Source:The Lip TV- talking about the life of Boston-Irish gangster, James Whitey Bulger.

Source:The New Democrat 

"WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER is the documentary about infamous Boston gangster "Whitey" Bulger, and we get the first look at the movie, direct from its premiere at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. Director Joe Berlinger explains to us the fascinating story of Bulger, the true story behind the inspiration for Jack Nicholson's character in the Departed, and the long manhunt and eventual apprehension of one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives in this BYOD."  

From The Lip TV

Source:Mob Video Vault- The Making of a Monster is also about James Whitey Bulger.

Off the top of my head I don’t know of more successful (and I don’t mean that as a complement) Irish-American mobster than James Whitey Bulger. He is the baddest Irish gangster as far as the amount of damage that he’s done in his life to other people. Being personally responsible for at least nineteen murders. And not being convicted of any of them until his early eighties. 

Here’s a guy who started his criminal career in his early teens and was able to keep it going until his early eighties without spending much of that time in prison. We’re not talking about John Gotti, or some other uneducated Italian mobster. We’re talking about an educated intelligent mobster who used his knowledge of the real world to work the system during his criminal career.

The mind-control program that Whitey was part of in Federal prison in the 1950s certainly didn’t help him. And if he doesn’t go through that it would’ve been a great thing for society. He would have spent more time in prison as a result with fewer people being murdered by him. But he was already a bad guy to begin with that had no issues killing anyone who he thought was a threat no matter the consequences that came from it. Not so much to him, but the relatives and friends of his murder victims. 

The Federal prison mind-control program was a mistake and should have never been started. But you can’t say that is the reason why Whitey became the serial murderer that he became. Again, Whitey was doing horrible things before gong to Atlanta and then later Alcatraz.

You could say that Whitey Bulger is the worst piece of garbage that was ever thrown out (and I’m being nice) and again when it comes to his criminal career I would have a hard time arguing with that. But he did have people in his personal life that he loved and took care of. Long-term girlfriends and people who loved him. 

As they say, Whitey was someone who was able to compartmentalized. He didn’t bring his work and I guess evil at home which just made him even more dangerous. Because it meant people around him didn’t know who he really was and he really operated. And fewer people who could turn him in and put him away. 

Whitey isn’t the baddest Irish mobster because of all the people he murdered. But how he was able to murder all of those people. The intelligence and skills he brought to his criminal activities. 

C-SPAN: 'John Boehner Resigns as Speaker of the House'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Cincinnati, Ohio) announcing his retirement.

Source:The New Democrat

"Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announces his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Watch the complete press conference here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

I don’t buy the regular guy line bit at all. John Boehner started off coming from a working-class German-American family in Cincinnati, Ohio which is very common there. But went to college and worked his way through there and became a successful small businessman in Ohio before running and getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, which was a bad year for Republicans who lost seats in the House thanks to a recession and an unpopular President Bush, the country getting ready to go to war with Iraq. 

Go up to 1994, as House Republicans win the House for the first time in forty-two years, he becomes Chairman of the Republican Conference. The fourth ranking Republican in the House. Becomes Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee in 2001, House Majority Leader in 2006 replacing Tom Delay.

John Boehner has spent most of his time in Congress as a House Republican leader, or committee chairman and has been there since 1991. We’re not talking about Joe Jones construction worker from Cleveland (or Cincinnati) who works very hard everyday, so his kids can have a better life than their father and hopefully retire with a decent pension and Social Security. We’re talking about a man with a successful business career, who became Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2011 and has held that job ever since. 

So not only is Speaker Boehner not a regular guy, but I sure as hell don’t feel sorry for him. We’re talking about a man who was never popular in his own caucus. And forget about House Democrats who don’t have much of say in who leads the House, John Boehner who was always in danger of losing his speakership because of his Far-Right and yet he decided to stay on and work through it anyway.

Whatever you think of John Boehner and as a Liberal Democrat I have a laundry list of issues with him myself and not bothering to take up immigration reform in the last Congress even after the Senate passed their own bipartisan bill is just one example, he was really one of the last adults in the House Republican Conference. Someone who at least knew how to govern and do what was right at the end to prevent current House Republican man-made crisis’ from becoming even worst. 

I hope Mr. Boehner remains Speaker, at least until the government funding issues are resolved. Because if you look at his possible replacements when you get past House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, or a bunch of Tea Party radicals there that rather use the government funding debate to try to force their policies on everyone else than to govern. Which means in a divided government working with the other party.

Patrick J. Buchanan: 'US & Catholicism In Crisis'

Source:Patrick J. Buchanan- with a look at the Catholic Church.

Source:The New Democrat

"During the 1950s, the twin pillars of worldwide anti-communism were Dwight Eisenhower’s America and the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.

During the 1980s, the last decade of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan and the Polish pope, John Paul II, were the pillars of resistance.

When Pope Francis arrives in Washington on Tuesday afternoon, the country he enters will be a very different one from Eisenhower’s America or Reagan’s America. And Catholics will be welcoming a new kind of pope.

In America 2015, homosexuality, abortion on demand and same-sex marriage — shameful crimes in Ike’s America, mortal sins in the catechism of Pius XII — have become constitutional rights.

These represent the values that define Barack Obama’s America, the values our officials defend at the United Nations, the values we preach to the world.

What Ike’s America saw as decadence, Obama’s America calls progress. And among its noisiest celebrants are our Catholic vice president, Joe Biden, and the Catholic leader of the Democratic Party in the House, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Since Eisenhower’s time, Christianity, the faith that created the West, has been purged from American public life. The Bible, prayer, and all Christian art, books and symbols have been expunged from the public schools as they were in Cuba when Fidel Castro took power.

Our cradle faith cannot be taught in our public schools.

America is a different country today, a secular and post-Christian nation on its way to becoming anti-Christian. Some feel like strangers in their own land. And from the standpoint of traditional Catholicism, American culture is an open sewer. A vast volume of the traffic on the Internet is pornography.

Ironically, as all this unfolds in what was once “God’s country,” Vladimir Putin seeks to re-establish Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the basis of morality and law in Russia. And one reads in The Wall Street Journal on Monday that Xi Jinping is trying to reintroduce his Chinese Communist comrades to the teachings of Confucianism.

The world is turned upside down. Every civilization seems to recognize the necessity of faith except for the West, which has lost its faith and is shrinking and dying for lack of it.

In a New York Times article this month — “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” — Steven Erlanger writes:

“In its rejection of Western liberal values of sexual equality and choice, conservative Russia finds common cause with many in Africa and with the religious teachings of Islam, the Vatican, fundamentalist Protestants and Orthodox Jews.”

Yet what Erlanger describes as “conservative Russia” does seem to share values with America, only it is the America of 1955, another country from the America of 2015.

Which raises a question: Does moral truth change?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election.

He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?

Or does truth exist independent of the marketplace?

Secular America, which has purged Christianity, preaches a new gospel to the world: liberal democracy as the salvation of mankind.

Yet did not Winston Churchill, icon of the democracy worshippers, tell us that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”?

The Catholic Church, too, faces a growing crisis of moral consistency and credibility.

The church of Pius XII and John Paul II taught that the truths of the Ten Commandments brought down from Sinai and the truths of the Sermon on the Mount are eternal. Those popes also taught that a valid marriage is indissoluble, that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, that abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn, an abomination.

Yet one reads regularly of discussions inside the Vatican to alter what is infallible church teaching on these doctrines to make the church more appealing to those who have rejected them.

As the pope arrives in America, some Catholics are calling for an acceptance of contraception, the ordination of women and a new acceptance of homosexuality. Yet the Episcopalians, who have embraced all these “reforms” and more, appear to be going the way of James Fenimore Cooper’s Mohicans.

In Cuba, Pope Francis declined to address the repression of the Castro brothers. Will he also avoid America’s moral crisis to chatter on about income inequality and climate change and find common ground with Obama?

What has come out of the Vatican in the past two years is moral confusion. Yet as Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput reminds us, “confusion is of the devil.” It is also trifling with schism.

Having emerged victorious in the 70-year ideological struggle against one of the greatest enemies that mankind has ever known, Marxism-Leninism, are the United States and the Catholic Church heading for the same desuetude and disintegration?" 

From Patrick J. Buchanan

"Before the 1992 New Hampshire primary, insurgent Republican candidate Pat Buchanan told "Face the Nation" why he was campaigning against his party's incumbent president." 

Source:Face The Nation- 1992 presidential candidate Pat Buchanan being interviewed by CBS News.

From Face The Nation

I’m not religious at all as an Agnostic. I don’t promote religion like a believer would, or put it down like a militant Atheist would. I’m completely neutral on the subject other than I believe in Freedom of Religion as well as Separation of Church and State. So asking me what is the state of Catholicism in America would be like asking the average mechanic what is the state of cancer research and expecting an expert opinion from that person on that subject. But I’m familiar with the 1950s even though I was born twenty-years later (give or take) and of course I’m familiar with today’s Modern America since I live in it.

Countries tend to progress and change. What might of seemed wrong or immoral to one generation of Americans back in the day may not seem wrong to people 20-40 years later (Let's say) Especially when you’re talking about activities that don’t actually involve hurting innocent people: 

Like what people watch on TV, consensual sex between adults even if they are from the same gender 

romantic couples deciding to live with each other and not getting married and perhaps even having kids 

women not just working, but having good responsible jobs where they even have men working under them 

gays living openly and no longer feeling the need hide their sexuality, and gay men not feeling the need to be viewed as masculine and gay women not feeling they should be feminine

So of course the America that Pope Francis is going to see this week will looking nothing like the America of the 1950s. But unless you’re a Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, Caucasian man, especially of wealth, why would you want to go back to the 1950s and have worry about be discriminated against simply because of your race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, where you were born even. 

America might have been a utopia for the Christian-Right especially the Anglo-Saxon, Southern Protestants. But not a very good place for just about everyone else. America has progressed a lot in the last sixty-years as most developed countries have. And progress is something that most people tend to be fans of anyway.

U.S. History: The New Right

Source: Liberty University-

Source:The New Democrat

The reason why I’m writing this piece is that I saw a video last week on YouTube. And it was about the New-Left in America and how they deal with free speech and their opposition to it and how they try to censor people they disagree with, or critical things about people they believe deserve special protection. And the guy made one particular good point about both the Christian-Right or New-Right and the New-Left. He said that the Christian-Right lost the Cultural War in America because they believed they could win that debate on the issues by making their case. Even though they operating in a country that doesn’t want big government in their personal lives and telling them how to live.
This guy’s point about the New-Left was also interesting and correct. He said that the New-Left and lets take free speech and their political correctness movement as an example, they don’t try to win the debate. They don’t even debate many times because they know government is not going or could constitutionally pull people from the air, or shut people up for simply saying things that they disagree with. So what they do with all of their petition’s and marches and trying to prevent people from speaking at functions and shouting them down from the audience is to try to privately censor people they disagree with. Bill Maher, hardly a rightist who has a lot of common with the New-Left on economic policy, is a perfect example of this from last fall and his comments about Islam.

The New-Right and New-Left even though they come from complete opposite fringes of the political spectrum, one being Far-Right and Far-Left, actually have a lot in common. They were both created about the same time late 1960s and early 1970s. They both believe they know what type of country America should be. With the New-Right we would essentially become a Christian Theocracy where their version of the Bible would replace the U.S. Constitution as our governing book and rule book. With the New-Left we would become a social democracy as it relates to economic policy. But more of a Marxist State when it comes to personal issues and free speech, or the lack of it would just be 

just one example.

The New-Right was created to take on Hollywood, the Cultural Revolution, the 1960s, Women’s Liberation, Social Liberalism and they really came together in the early and mid 1970s with Roe V Wade become law of the land and making abortion legal in the United States. The New-Left was created to take on American capitalism, America’s involvement in the Cold war and trying to defeat communism and other authoritarian ideologies. As well to create more spaces for women to achieve and even take over in America and to force wealthy Americans especially Caucasian-Americans to give up their wealth to take care of the poor through government. Both movements are fascist. If you disagree with the New-Right you’re Un-American and immoral. If you disagree with the New-Left you’re selfish and a bigoted.

You can’t really cover the complete history of the New-Right and New-Left in one blog piece. You would need a book to do that, but what I’m doing here is giving you brief history of both movements and to show you that even though they both operate on complete sides of the American spectrum they actually both have a lot in common. They would both transform America into something that it completely isn’t outside of perhaps the Bible Belt, or New York City and San Francisco. Neither side believes in freedom for the most part, unless you’re living the way and believe in the things that they do. But both sides are both collectivist and see individualism and individual freedom as dangerous things and would like to eliminate them.
Source:Plano Prof