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.

The American Conservative: Senator Mike Lee: 'The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform'

Source:The American Conservative- U.S. Senator Mike Lee, R, Utah.

Source:The New Democrat

"I’ll never forget when I first began to appreciate the magnitude of this problem. It was 2004; I was working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Utah. In some cases I witnessed judges forced by federal law to impose punishments that did not fit the crime—first-time offenders sometimes being locked up for longer than murderers and rapists."

From The American Conservative

"I think a great demonstration of the old rules not applying anymore is look at the co-sponsors of The Smarter Sentencing Act," says Matt Kibbe, president of the libertarian activist group FreedomWorks. "It's guys like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and of course Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, also with Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse.... They all agree there is an over-criminalization of American life and they all agree the government has overstepped its bounds."

Source:Reason Magazine- U.S. Senator's Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jeff Flake: all in favor of criminal justice reform in Congress.

From Reason Magazine

I think the conservative case of criminal justice reform is very clear and comes from a couple of angles. One, the conservative principle of the punishment meeting the crime and personal responsibility and so-forth. Someone should explain to me why 3-5 years in prison is a just sentence for being in possession of pot, or even cocaine, when all they’re being charged with is illegal possession of an illegal narcotic. Then the other reason being from a fiscally conservative standpoint. Locking away millions of people in prison is very expensive. Especially when we don’t get much for that investment when you look at how violent our prisons are. The fact that we have so many people returning to prison after they get released. The poor health care, lack of opportunity for self-improvement, all the inmates that have serious mental health issues that don’t get treated and I could go on.

This is not about going soft, or hard on crime. We know the dangerous consequences when serious crimes are not taken seriously and when lighter crimes are treated harshly. You get a country where people don’t feel safe to leave their homes when you go too soft. And an overly expensive and wasteful criminal justice system when you go too hard on crimes where the offender could just have been in rehab, a halfway house, done their time in county jail, given probation, or a combination of all of these factors. This should not be about being tough or, soft, or even liberal, or conservative. Even though as a Liberal I believe we have the right approach here. This should be about being smart on crime and being just with our criminal justice system. The sanctions meeting the crimes and the sanctions coming with opportunity for self-improvement so the offender doesn’t end up back in the criminal justice system.

The reasons why you have Conservatives like Senator Mike Lee, coming together with Progressives like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and why Conservatives like Newt Gingrich are coming together with Progressives and Liberals outside of Congress, is because the Center-Right and Center-Left both see the waste an injustice in the criminal justice system. And in an era with low economic and job growth and high debt and deficits, you have the two sides looking at ways to cut waste in government and get more bang from our taxpayer bucks. The criminal justice system is a great place to start. When you consider that we have two-million people in prison in America with so many non-violent offenders being sent away for long prison sentences. When everyone involved especially the public would have been better off with a lighter approach. And reserve our harsh sentences for our violent offenders

CBS News: 60 Minutes Presents John Gotti

Source:CBS News.

Source:The New Democrat

John Gotti, is not someone who I see as evil. At least not in the pure evil sense like an Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. Gotti was clearly a bad guy and I think anyone familiar with him knows that. But this not someone who didn’t have positive qualities. This is a man who loved his wife and kids and took care of them the best that they can and provided very well for them. Who raised his kids and his children have actually turned out pretty well. Especially considering their father is one of the top and most successful Italian gangsters of all-time. His daughter Victoria, is a very successful businesswomen and John Jr. has made a life for himself as well. And as far as John Jr. I hope he’s sincere in that he wants nothing to do with the gangster life and wants to live a productive life.

John Gotti Sr. went to prison for the last time in 1992 and was given a life sentence and died in prison about ten years later. He was in solitary confinement and yes there have been gangsters who have run their crime families from prison. Lucky Luciano, is a perfect example of that from the 1940s. When you’re in solitary you don’t have any outside contact from prison except for the occasional visits. So it would have been impossible for Gotti to run his crime family from his situation in prison. So someone on the outside had to do it for him. His son would have been a candidate for that. I think its clear that John Jr. ran that family at least for a time in the 1990s. What he did with it, I don’t think anyone will ever know. And its pretty obvious why he wouldn’t want to admit that he did. Because any crimes committed under his watch he could be held responsible for them.

NFL Films: NFL 1983- The Story of The 1983 Los Angeles Raiders

Source:NFL Films.

Source:The Daily Review

I believe the 1983 Los Angeles Raiders represent everything that their creator Al Davis dreamed of on both sides of the ball. His football philosophy was all about pressure and toughness on both sides of the ball. He believed that you literally beat the hell out of your opponents on both sides of the ball to beat them. I mean you look at that defense with Howie Long and Lyle Alzado as your defensive ends. Howie Long, arguably being the best all around defensive end and perhaps defensive lineman of the 1980s.

And then you have Bill Pickel and Reggie Kinlaw inside. Who were both stout against the run and rush the quarterback as well. And then the linebackers, you're talking Ted Hendricks, perhaps the best all around outside linebacker of all-time. Pro Bowler Matt Millen inside, Rod Martin on the other side, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame as well. They had two cover corner in Lester Hays and Mike Haynes. Most teams are lucky to have one.

Man for man, I believe the Raiders were better in 83 than the Chicago Bears were in 85. You argue about the numbers and stats, but I believe the 83 Raiders and the versatility of their linebackers were better than the Bears linebackers who were primarily blitzers and run stuffers. But teams don't win the Super Bowl just with a great defense. You need at least to have a good offense that moves the ball and puts up points and doesn't turn the ball over on a regular basis and makes the job of your defense even harder.

And the Raiders in 83 had more than that led by quarterback Jim Plunkett and the great tailback Marcus Allen. One of the top 5-10 all around running backs of all-time. And they had tight end Todd Christiansen  and the great Cliff Branch on the outside as a receiver. A big strong offensive line with Bruce Davis, Charley Hannah, Mickey Marvin, Dave Dalby, who was part of all three Raiders Super Bowl championships and Henry Lawrence. Big strong mobile offensive line that was great in the running and passing games.

To me at least the 1983 Los Angeles Raiders represent what the Raiders of the 1980s should have been. They were poised and ready to replace the Pittsburgh Steelers from the 1970s as the dominant team in the NFL and I believe were in better shape and had better personal than the 1980s San Francisco 49ers who became the team of the 1980s in the NFL. And you can't call the 1980s Raiders a failure since they did win two Super Bowls and made the AFC Playoffs five times and won three division championships. A great decade for most clubs in the NFL, but the Raiders actually underachieved.

Al Davis, almost ruined Marcus Allen's career and not allowing his coaches to use him in the way they should which was as their premier player on offense. And they were never able to replace an aging Jim Plunkett at QB. I mean the reason why the NFC won thirteen straight Super Bowls in the 1980s and 90s, was because post-83 the Raiders slipped and became a team that was just fighting to make the playoffs every year. With the Denver Broncos taking the lead in the AFC West over the Raiders. But for one season in 83 we got to see how great the 1980s Raiders could have been.