NBC News: Minister Malcolm X- 'Don't Beg For a Job: Create a Job'

Source:NBC News- Minister Malcolm X: "don't beg for a job, create a job"

Source:The New Democrat

"Your Name Is No Accident: http://tinyurl.com/z5qldpv

Malcolm X Says: Stop BEGGING the Man for a Job and CREATE a Job for Yourself by starting an ONLINE BUSINESS. Watch the FREE Video: http://www.launchyourstore.co.uk/

(This video is for educational purposes only and displayed under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.)"

Source:NBC News

For the life of me I'll never understand what the right-wing doesn't like about Minister Malcolm X and why the Far-Left loves him other than for these possible reasons:

The right-wing is either completely ignorant about the man or they fear strong African-Americans especially African-American men and simply see them as animals who escaped from the zoo or something. I think I understand what the Far-Left loves about him, because he was this strong, intelligent African-American man who constantly critiqued ( or even attacked ) people he called the man or the Whiteman and up until 1964 he was basically a racist as far as how he felt about European-Americans including Jews.

And as we're seeing with the emergence of Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party today, they don't like European-Americans either, especially if they're male, straight, Christian, have rural or blue-collar background. And see the largest racial group in America as Devils, especially the men in the community. Which is how Minister Malcolm viewed European-Americans up until the time he went to Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and met and talked to a lot of fellow Muslims there of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including European. And learned that not all Europeans are bigots and perhaps a lot of them are not bigots.

But if you look at Minister Malcolm's politics and what he was pushing for in the 1960s, it wasn't socialism and big government, including reparations. He had a lot more in common with Mr. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater, then he ever had in common with Senator George McGovern. ( The Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his era ) In an era when the Democratic Party was pushing for more welfare and other assistance from Big Government for the African-American community, Minister Malcolm had a different message for Democrats and others who wanted to give African-Americans more government assistance, which was telling Big Government: "we don't want your welfare and your socialism, we want our freedom and the power to control our own destinies. We want the same economic freedom that European and Asian-Americans have in this country. And keep your welfare for people who can't work and make it in this country."

So if you look at Minister Malcolm X's politics of real Black Power and empowering African-Americans to take control over their own lives through things like education and economic development and empowering African-Americans to become business owners and managers in their own communities, there's a lot for the right-wing especially Center-Right and Conservative-Libertarians in America to like about Minister Malcolm X. And a lot for the Far-Left even if they loved him for his identity politics to not like about Minister Malcolm and even hate the man. As they're pushing for more government control and welfare for Americans of all races and ethnicities.

Rob Atsea: 'NBC News Update With Jessica Savitch (Easter 1979)'

Source:Rob Atsea- NBC News anchor Jessica Savitch.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jessica Savitch anchors this Easter 1979 NBC News Update, which includes a promo for the game show "Whodunnit" 

From Rob Atsea

Jessica Savitch, was NBC Nightly News's weekend anchor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before she tragically died in I believe 1983. She was like 36 at that point and well on her way to becoming a lead network news anchor, or perhaps having another network news show. She had great presence, she knew what she was talking about, had great delivery and a great voice. And yes like Diane Sawyer, she was gorgeous and very cute and easy to look at and listen to.

Easter 1979, an important time. There was a Polish Pope in John Paul, who is a hero of the Christian-Right in America on social issues. But also a hero with Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to human rights. And was a major inspiration for the way falling in Eastern Europe with Slavic bloc there.

Iran was under a new regime and government and a huge energy producer that America relied on still at that point. But was becoming less predictable and stable just when America was going through an energy and economic crisis. Which just made 1979 an even.

Remember This: BookNotes With Brain Lamb- David Brinkley: 'From The New Deal to The Contract With America, From 1995'

Source: Remember This- Longtime NBC News & ABC News anchor David Brinkley-

Source:The New Democrat 

“David McClure Brinkley (July 10, 1920 — June 11, 2003) was an American newscaster for NBC and ABC in a career lasting from 1943 to 1997.” 

From Remember This

You could say that David Brinkley saw it all in his life at least as a broadcast journalist and anchor. He had the first and big nightly national newscast the Huntley Brinkley Report, with Chet Huntley from NBC News. During that period there was the Korean War, the start of the Cold War, General Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, the early days of the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement in the 1960s, our first Irish-Catholic President of the United States in John F. Kennedy, the 1960s, the 1970s, Watergate, etc, all as either anchor of the Huntley Brinkley Report, or co-anchor of NBC Nightly News. David Brinkley, had a long and great career as either anchor of the NBC News nightly newscast, or as anchor of the ABC News Sunday morning news program This Week. He was the first stars of ABC News when they finally merged as a major player in the network news business in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David Brinkley had an ability as a good interviewer and commentator. Like Howard Smith at ABC News, he was very good at delivering the news and analyzing it as well. Explaining what the news meant and the JFK assassination in how how he described how the country was feeling and how horrible that tragedy was in 1963, is a perfect example of that. His commentaries about Watergate in the early 1970s, is another example of that. He was very witty as well when he would get a silly story to cover and talk about on his show. He was almost like a great debate moderator on This Week between Conservative George Will and Progressive ABC News White House corespondent Sam Donaldson. The debates they had on that show made This Week worth watching by itself, along with the people they interviewed. And of course he had that great voice and gentlemen demeanor that made him perfect for news programs, because the people there didn't think he was trying to attack them.

The Huntley Brinkley Report, was a two-man nightly newscast with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. CBS News had Walter Cronkite, who was simply the best at what he did and still is and anchored the CBS Evening News. NBC News had two excellent news anchors and men who worked very well together in Brinkley and Huntley and paired them together. Which worked for a while up until the late 60s or so when the CBS Evening News, became the top not just newscast, but perhaps news show in the country up until the 1980s. David Brinkley, arguably is the first of the great broadcast news anchors and someone who was at the top or near top for almost fifty-years at both NBC News and later ABC News. And is one of the best broadcast journalists we've ever produced, because of his ability to interview, deliver the news, add with when appropriate and could explain the news in a commonsense way that made him very popular. 

Tenzin Tsetan Choklay: Daniel Patrick Moynihan- On Meet the Press

Source:Tnezin Tsetan Choklay- Daniel P. Moynihan, on NBC News's Meet The Press.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Daniel Patrick Moynihan Meet the Press, 24 appearances in 31 years. Very entertaining interviews with Daniel Patrick Moynihan (March 16, 1927 -- March 26, 2003), He was an American politician and sociologist. A member of the Democratic Party, he was first elected to the United States Senate for New York in 1976, and was re-elected three times (in 1982, 1988, and 1994). He declined to run for re-election in 2000. Prior to his years in the Senate, Moynihan was the United States' ambassador to the United Nations and to India, and was a member of four successive presidential administrations, beginning with the administration of John F. Kennedy, and continuing through Gerald Ford." 

From  Tenzin Tsetan Choklay

In this whole video I was most impressed with Pat Moynihan when he was talking about what became Welfare to Work in 1996. Which is what he supported when he worked for President Richard Nixon in the 1970s. 

The Nixon Administration, actually proposed what became the 1996 Welfare to Work Law, but in 1969 and pushed it in the early 1970s, but couldn't get it through a Democratic Congress. He advocated for child care grants, so single mothers could go back to school and go to work. He advocated for job training and even work requirements for people on Welfare. So they're simply not collecting government checks, but not trying to move off of Welfare all together.

Now of course as Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, he voted against the 1996 Welfare to Work Law when Congress debated that bipartisan bill that was signed by President Bill Clinton. But before he came to Congress in 1977 that is the type of Welfare system that he wanted. An insurance system for uneducated adults who have kids too soon and aren't ready to take care of them. Who need help getting by in the short-term, but also help them become independent long-term and off public assistance all together. Because they're getting child care assistance for their kids. They're going back to school, they're working for perhaps the first time in their lives and getting themselves the skills to get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise

Source:Federal Expression - The Dan Smoot Report with guess who.

Source:The New Democrat

Just to start off with some of the things that Dan Smoot says here. I think you would get a more intelligent analysis from Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity about liberalism and so-called modern liberalism, than Dan Smoot. And that is not a complement. He lumps liberalism in with communism and fascism. Liberals, believe in human rights and individual rights. Communists, don't and believe that a state strong enough to take care of everyone you wouldn't need individual rights. Because everyone would be taken care of by big government. Liberalism, is about liberty, liberation and liberalization. Not statism, especially in a communistic, or theocratic form.

Now as far as what Dan Smoot's main point about President Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I basically agree with everything he said here, except the nonsense about so-called modern liberalism. President Johnson's goals with the Great Society, was to create a country where everyone would be freedom from anything bad, especially poverty, but discrimination as well. He and his administration, with help from a Democratic Congress and Progressive Republican support in both the House and Senate, otherwise those programs don't pass, built off the New Deal and added new welfare rights to the American safety net. But didn't create some Scandinavian welfare state, where the central state becomes responsible for managing everyone's welfare for them.

So Dan Smoot, is wrong here about what liberalism actually is and what Lyndon Johnson was trying to accomplish with the Great Society. But was right about the dangers of a superstate big government welfare state that assumes responsibility for the personal and economic welfare of each and every individual. But that is not what we have in America and never will. Unless more than half of the country goes on a month long marijuana high and elects Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders President. But you might have a better shot at seeing snow in Atlanta at a Braves games in July, than Stein or Sanders ever getting elected President of the United States. So nothing to be worried about.
Source:Federal Expression

Dan Smoot: Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

Source:The New Democrat

'Should we negotiate with Communist China?' Is sort of a moot question since we already do. And have been for over forty-years now since the Nixon Administration. And we negotiated with Russia the whole time during the Cold War. Russia, which was a much larger threat than China ever was. At least militarily, but never had the economic strength that the People's Republic of China has today, because the Soviet Union was a total Marxist state, with a complete centralized command and control economy. As the total isolation of the Communist Republic of Cuba showed the least almost sixty-years now, you don't improve Communist states by simply ignoring them.

By America engaging with Russia and Communist states in Eastern Europe during the Cold War proved, was that America was by far a superior society and country. Not a people, but our values and form of government, our freedom, was far superior than anything the Communists could offer their people. We proved that by showing the people in those Communist countries what freedom and democracy were about and why they would want those things for themselves either in America, or back home. Americans, didn't emigrate to Russia during the Cold War for the most part. But Russian and other Slavs in the Soviet Union, as well as Jews, emigrated to America during that period.

So of course America should be negotiating with Communist China, Communist Cuba and Communist Korea, as we did with Communist Russia during the Cold War. Because it simply works, because it allows for people on both sides to see for themselves without government propaganda, the differences between freedom and statism. The quality of life that someone has in a liberal democracy, or even social democracy like in Europe, compared with how they would live in a Marxist state. Where there's no such thing as freedom and individuality. Just a superstate, an obese big government, that is addicted to controlling their own people.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand, Author, Atlas Shrugged

Source:CUNY-TV- Author Ayn Rand.

Source:The New Democrat

Ayn Rand, is the modern inspiration and philosopher of the libertarian movement in America. Whether it is Ron Paul, or a whole bunch of libertarian writers and bloggers like Walter Williams, Reason Magazine, ( the title Reason, should be a pretty good clue there ) they all talk like and believe in the same things as Ayn Rand. "Taxation is theft, people shouldn't be forced to give their money through government to others", etc. This all comes from Ayn Rand's objectivism and what she believed and to a certain extent with the Tea Party she still inspires the Republican Party today. You don't have to put words in Ayn Rand's mouth whether you are a fan of hers, or not. She does that for you and has already so many of her thoughts on paper and in video.

So this and that we tend to agree on social issues and economic issues when it comes to choice, is what I respect about Ayn. Her consistency, she didn't take a position when she thought it was popular and then gradually moved into another direction when it became unpopular. And that extent she would have made a great public servant, but a bad politician, because she had a habit of telling people exactly what she thought and knew. Instead of what people wanted to hear. The complete opposite of Donald Trump, who takes his political positions based on which way the wind is blowing at Wrigley Field. Is the wind blowing in or out. (Sorry for the baseball analogy)

If anything Ayn's political philosophy became well-known at the height of the collectivist Progressive Era from the 1940s through the 1960s. So based on the fact she had principles gives people a lot to respect about her.
Source:CUNY-TV

Ayn Rand Institute: 'James McConnell- Interviews Ayn Rand About the New Intellectual (1961)'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, being interviewed by James McConnell, in 1961.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In this interview, which took place upon publication of For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand discusses the nature of cultural leadership, the influence of Plato, Aquinas and Kant, the creeping mysticism infecting science and the lengthy process by which individuals become the “new intellectuals” of tomorrow.

Recorded May 15, 1961." 

From the Ayn Rand Institute

One thing I would give Ayn Rand credit for is her consistency. She believed the same things when she became well-known in the 1940s or so all the way up until she died. We agree when it comes to individual freedom that people should have the power to live their own lives and not be interfered with government as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person. This is something that Liberals have in common with Libertarians and Objectivists. 

But I guess the reason why objectivism has never caught on anywhere in the world and why libertarianism has just become  a major movement in America and Canada in the last ten years or so is because even though a lot of people tend to believe in both personal economic freedom now, we also tend at least in America believe in a public safety net for people who truly need it.

Canada and Europe, are a bit different where they don't believe that individuals should be left to take care of themselves and go further than just a social insurance system, which is what a safety net is. And have welfare states there to meet the basic needs of the people. Mixed in with private enterprise to fund those social programs and a good deal of personal freedom as well. As least for a social democracy. 

I like to call Americans Classical Liberals, or Social Liberals at least in the sense that we go further when it comes to both personal and economic freedom then Social Democrats. But one thing that separates us from Libertarians is that again we want a safety net for people who truly need it. Not a welfare state to manage people's economic affairs for them. But social insurance for people who truly hit hard times.

David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview (1988)

Source:The New Democrat

Ron Paul, sounding less radical even as a Libertarian than I was expecting from him in 1988. He was talking about eliminating the income tax, which is something I would like to do, but then replacing it with a national sales tax, which is also something I want to do. Which is a top for another post. And he was also talking about sending more money and power back down to the states. Not eliminating public education, but making private education available to students. Very radical for lets say a Progressive, or Social Democrat on the left whose never in favor of eliminating, or even lowering taxes and not in favor of reducing the power of the Federal Government at least as it relates to the economy. But for a Libertarian not very radical.

Generally when you hear libertarian political candidates speak they say they're going to repeal at least two amendments from the Constitution, eliminate the income tax, the New Deal, Great Society, pull all Americans troops out of Europe and Japan on day one of getting into office. Even if they know enough about that government that doing even a few of those things are not very practical. Because of the opposition that would come from both Republicans and Democrats. But also the voters as well. But by the time Representative Paul ran for president in 1988 he was already in his sixth term in the House and had a pretty good idea about how Congress worked. So he wasn't proposing to repeal a bunch of constitutional amendments and that sort of thing, because he knows how difficult that is.

Godvia: Like It is: Gil Noble Interviewing Abdullah Abdur-Razzaq on The Last Year of Malcolm X in 1997

Source:The New Democrat

The last year of Malcolm X was hell being under constant threat of death and having his own organization after him, plus Federal agencies like the FBI and perhaps others. And yet it was also a year when he got himself and education about people who didn’t look like him meaning Caucasians and perhaps others. He learned that not all Caucasians are racists and no longer viewed them as devils either. I don’t know who killed Malcolm X, but it is clear that people either in his own immediate group, or The Nation of Islam were involved in it. Perhaps Louis Farrakhan himself and perhaps parts of NYPD and maybe the FBI. Minister Malcolm had lots of enemies including people in his own life that wanted him dead.

Malcolm X had started moving away from the ideas that the races in America should be separated. That not all Caucasians are racists and evil, that not all the problems within the African-American community were about racism. And started preaching a different movement that was about self-empowerment for the African-American community and talking about education and economic development. And not preaching the message of blaming the so-called White man for all the problems of the African-American community. And people in The Nation of Islam hated Malcolm X for this and wanted him taken out for it. I would love to know who actually executed Malcolm, but I don’t believe we know that yet.

African-Americans get stereotyped as being big government welfare loving lovers who put all of their faith in the welfare state for their community. And unfortunately a lot of that is true thanks to the NAACP and the Black Caucus in Congress. But one of the reasons why the death of Malcolm X was such a huge loss not just for this community, but the American community as a whole is because Malcolm wasn’t about big government and welfare. His message was about education, self-empowerment and economic development for the African-American community. And there really hasn’t been another leader in this community that has had that type of message for African-Americans and Americans in general other than President Barack Obama.

Federal Expression: 'Fearless American Dan Smoot'

Source:Federal Expression- 1960s Tea Party leader Dan Smoot.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dan Smoot discusses the need for courageous leaders in the fight for liberty.

Funny anecdotes about the man who helped launch his Television program."  

From Federal Expression 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society."  

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine."  

From Wikipedia

To me at least, Dan Smoot at the activist and media level was the Tea Party leader of the 20th Century. And for anyone in the Tea Party movement who is smart enough to understand who he was and familiar with him Dan Smoot is one of their inspirational leaders. Because a lot of Tea Party members use the same rhetoric that Smoot did and go after what they call moderate Republicans the same way. 

Far-Right (or New-Right, if you prefer) Republicans, accusing Republicans who are simply not looking to destroy the Democratic Party and work with Democrats from time to time as fake Republicans or RINOS. (Republicans in name only) And what they believe that they needed was were Republicans who fight for their so-called conservatives causes at all costs even if that leads to gridlock.

The early 1960s, was certainly a bad time for Conservatives in or outside of the Republican Party. Progressive Democrats had a lot of the power in Washington even with the right-wing Southern block that they had to deal with in their party in Congress. 

The early 1960s especially was bad for the right-wing in America, but the mid-1960s even with more Republicans and Conservative Republicans getting elected in 1966, wasn't a good time for right-wingers in and out of the GOP as well. The Republican Party, was in transition. They still had their Eisenhower/Rockefeller progressive wing, but they also had a growing Southern and Western conservative wing in and outside of Congress. Senator Barry Goldwater, was an example of this.

Dan Smoot was one of the biggest and most important activists in the conservative movement in the 1960s. And a reason my Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater was able to win the 1964 Republican nomination for president. Because the Goldwater Conservatives had grown so much in the GOP that Senator Goldwater was able to get the votes and delegates to win the GOP nomination for president. And Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report which was both a publication as well as radio/TV program was a part of that. 

Dan Smoot was the Tea Party leader of his time and deserves a lot of credit for that wing of the American right-wing, or conservative movement gaining the success that they did in the late 1960s and into the 1970s and 80s. 

The Week: Sam Fragoso: How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry

Source:The Week- Buckley V. Vidal.

Source:The New Democrat

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV. Where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either. Where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960. Where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game. And knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN. Because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff. Because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV.
Source:Movie Clips

Liberty Pen: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand - Reason & Atheism (1974)

Source: Liberty Pen- Objectivist Ayn Rand-

Source:The New Democrat

If it wasn’t for so many anti-religious militant Atheists in America and Atheists who tend to get linked with Communists and other statists, I might be an Atheist myself. This is a tough issue for me even as a Liberal who of course believes in reason and evidence which is what liberalism is built around. At least the real and classical versions of liberalism. Because I haven’t personally seen a God and don’t know of anyone who actually has. And if everybody especially religious fundamentalists regardless of religion were honest about this issue, they would say the same thing. And state the obvious and say, “of course I’ve never seen a God before and I don’t anyone who has.”

The main reason I’m not an Atheist and not religious, is because I don’t know that there isn’t a God. All I know is that everyone has never seen one. And if I was forced to take a stand on the issue I would say God doesn’t exist. But what keeps me from being an Atheist is the good that you see from religions and good work that comes from churches. Not saying that non-profit secular groups don’t provide the same services. But with religious people who sometimes are so far-right they might be better suited in Saudi Arabia politically than America, they do these good works like helping out the disadvantage from their religious core. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick and so-forth.

There’s a lot of good work that comes from religious communities and religious charities. And to that extent at least there’s a lot of good that comes from religion whether God exists, or he’s some made up figure that people feel the need to turn to every time they’re in trouble. But I don’t believe in God, because again I’m more about reason than faith. Sure I have faith in things and people who I know and trust, but that is different in having faith in someone you’ve never even seen and don’t even know exists. I don’t want to consider myself to be an Atheist, because Atheists at least from what I’ve seen sound and look like the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across. And perhaps aren’t religious, because they don’t believe in live and let live.
Source:Liberty Pen

Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher: The Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky Affair (1998)

Source:The New Democrat

Shocker! A 1998 political talk show covering the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair. Gee, I guess there was nothing else going in the world. Similar to 1995 with the O.J. Simpson trial. As far as David Brock, I guess he was a closeted left-wing Socialist, as well as a gay man. Pretending to be a far-rightist who wanted to put America in a time machine and take us back to 1955. Perhaps even 1915 before American women had the right to vote. Well, Brock was a closeted homosexual until 1998 when I guess someone on the Right outed him. And now he’s head of a far-left media group called Media Matters. That seems to be in the business of trying to put right-wing media out of business.

But there’s one thing I sort of feel sympathy for David Brock. Being a closeted gay man and Socialist, pretending to be a right-winger on the Right in America. Having to pretend you love women, cars, sports, American capitalism in front of a group of people who think that gays should either be deported, or put in prison. Of course, he could’ve always moved to Canada where he would’ve fit in perfectly. And perhaps not even have to listen to, or hear any right-wing media whatsoever. Wait! Canadians, watch, read and listen to American media all the time. Perhaps because their media is so boring and has so little to report. I mean Canada, a country physically the size of a continent, but with only thirty-five million people. Because there’s year round arctic winter in half of the country.

One more thing about the Bill Clinton White House intern blow job scandal. I’ll give credit to anyone who can tell the difference between the group in America that tried to eliminate one way or another Bill Clinton from the presidency, from the Far-Right in the Tea Party that has tried to do the same thing to Barack Obama 10-15 soon to be twenty-years later. Wait! I have it. The difference is that the people who tried to kick Barry out of office are about 15-20 years older than the people who tried to kick Wild Bill out of office. Same crew, but with just more gray hair and resources to work with in the areas of the internet and social media.

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman (1980)

Source:The New Democrat

Phil Donahue, is probably as far-left as a TV show host could be, at least in his time. And yet even with his staunch slant and support for government interference, government assistance and government taxation, he was a hell of an interviewer. Especially when it came to intelligent people who came from lets say the opposite side of the political spectrum. Someone like a Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be another example. Not sure if he ever interviewed Bill Buckley, but that would’ve been a great interview and show as well. Donahue, would let his guests speak. He would also make his case and they would have a back and forth. And he would also get his audience involved.

What you had in Phil Donahue, was a Collectivist. From the left in the form of a Progressive, or even Progressive/Socialist. Making the case that private enterprise, private enterprise and even capitalism come with risks. If not dangerous and perhaps are even bad things. But its better than Marxism and total state-ownership when it comes to economics. But if we’re going to have capitalism and private enterprise, they need to be well-regulated, which means highly regulated, for someone with a more Socialist background. And you need a government big enough to take care of people who don’t do well in the private enterprise system.

Milton, didn’t come the exact opposite direction on the Right. Because he did believe in things like regulations when it came to the environment. And even came out for reforming the safety net, instead of eliminating it. But he didn’t like high taxes and highly centralized government and wanted as little government, especially the Federal Government involvement in the economy. So you would have Donahue in this interview always not just making the case for government and even central government involvement in the economy, but making the case for more government involvement in the economy. And yet these two men could have a very good and productive discussion and debate on these issues. Because they actually listened to each other.

Liberty Pen: Megyn Kelly: 'Free Speech Under Assault'

Source: Liberty Pen-

Source:The New Democrat

Hate speech, which I believe this anti-Muslim event and their drawings of Muhammad clearly falls under, is protected by the First Amendment. Government, can’t shut someone up, because they, or other people disagree with what someone is saying. Or are even assaulted and even find it hateful. You don’t like liberal democracy and our liberal First Amendment, perhaps America is not the country for you. And you would be better off living in the Middle East, or some place where you won’t have those issues to deal with.

And another great thing about the First Amendment, is when some asshole says something hateful about some group, guess what, that person opens them self up to replies and responses. People being able to tell that person what they think about what that person has to say. And even hold rallies against that person. Bill Maher, who I don’t generally put in the asshole category and tend to even agree with him when it comes to his criticisms about the Christian-Right and Muslims, when he doesn’t lump all Christians and Muslims as bad people, or whatever. Found out how liberal our First Amendment is last fall. About his comments over Islam.

When the Far-Right in America, whether its Rush Limbaugh or some other fathead, says provocative if not derogatory things about Latinos, Muslims, even women, Americans let Rush know exactly what they think about him. When Megyn Kelly even, accuses President Obama of trying to bring socialism to America, or whatever she’s complaining about the President, or says that he’s governing like a dictator, I correct her on my blog, when I don’t have anything better to do. You know Free Speech, is not for everybody. Meaning not everyone can handle it as far as listening to it. Of course all Americans have the First Amendment right, but not all Americans can handle other Americans having that same right. So they try to shut the other side up.

To quote President Andrew Shepard from The American President, which is one my favorite movies. “America is hard. You have to want it to be able to handle it.” More of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. And President Shepard played by Michael Douglas, was referring to Free Speech. He said that we all have this right, but that right protects all Americans right to Free Speech. And he basically said that the Free Speech is only worth something if Americans are willing to fight for someone else’s right to speech. The right for someone to say and believe things that you might find disgusting.

Insulting speech and hate speech, we have to fight for those things to. Because when Americans are no longer able to be critical and even say things that are offensive, we lose the ability to be individuals. And end up just agreeing and loving each other and never learning anything new. Because we see everyone as perfect. And there’s nothing perfect, or collectivist about liberal democracy and Free Speech. It’s a very imperfect system and form of government. But it’s still the best system in the world and why so many people leave their country that doesn’t have these rights to come here. Instead of going to Europe, or Canada. Actually, people still leave Europe to come to America.
Source:Liberty Pen

The Week: Ryu Spaeth: 'Is To Kill a Mockingbird Racist?'

Source:The Week- Actor Gregory Peck.

Source:The New Democrat

I saw the To Kill a Mockingbird movie last night in preparation for this piece. And I’ve seen it before, the last time probably five years ago. And I haven’t actually read the book, so I can’t comment on that intelligently. But the movie, even though it certainly shows racist characters, it’s certainly not a racist movie. If Ryu Spaeth, is asking whether the To Kill a Mockingbird movie is racist, with all due respect, that is a silly question. It is about a young African-American man in the deep South in the 1963s, who is falsely accused of murdering a young Caucasian women. And the defendant, being represented by a good veteran Caucasian lawyer, who not only knows his client is innocent based on the evidence, but does what he can to get him acquitted.

Now where is the racism in this movie? This movie is about a town in rural Alabama in the 1930s. Where the people there are not well-educated and struggling just to survive. Where the town is overwhelming Caucasian and probably Anglo-Saxon at that and who probably sees African-Americans and that is not what they called Black people back then, but they saw Africans as their ancestors who owned African slaves did. As animals and property, not as human beings. And yet one of the members of this community is falsely accused of raping a young Caucasian women and one of the members of this Anglo-Saxon community, does whatever he can to defend Tom Robinson. An African-American man accused of raping a young Caucasian women.

The To Kill a Mockingbird movie, is about the times, essentially. What life was like in very rural Alabama in the 1930s for both Caucasian and African people in this community. And racism, is obviously a factor here, like it was everywhere else in the country and perhaps a bigger problem in Alabama and the deep South in general. But this movie doesn’t make one community look better than another community, or members of one community look better than another, simply because of their race. This movie was about showing what life was like for people in this community in the 1930s. And how justice was carried out and how the community responded when one of their members accuses someone of seriously hurting them. Nothing racist about that.
Source:Christopher Leps

ABC Sports: Portrait of Willie Mays

Source:ABC Sports- Cincinnati Reds @ Chicago Cubs, at Wrigley Field.

Source:The New Democrat

You can argue about who is the best all around center fielder of all-time. Willie Mays, from the San Francisco Giants, or Mickey Mantle from the New York Yankees. And there wouldn’t be anyone else that I would consider for that. But Willie Mays, certainly is the best center fielder in the history of the National Baseball League. And perhaps the best all around player in the National League in his era. The 1950s and 1960s. And I don’t know of a great ballplayer who had more fun playing the game of baseball than Willie Mays. He was truly one of those players who made going to the ballpark worth it on his own. If for no other reason, because of how much he loved baseball.

The terms the total package and great players, are overused and overused catch phrases in America. But the total package when it comes to baseball, I’m not sure fits anyone better than Willy Mays. Here’s a player, with a 302 career batting average, 3200 hits, who hit 660 home runs, drove in over 1900 runs and struck out less than seventy times a year. In today’s game, if you hit 285-290 and are a power hitter, 25-30 home runs a season and drive in 90 plus a season and strike out less than a hundred time a year, that is considered good. In Willie Mays time, striking out 90 times a season, with power numbers like that, would be considered a lot.

But you can’t be total package as a baseball player, if you’re just great at the plate. There isn’t a better defensive center fielder than Willie Mays, ever. As far as range, speed, throwing arm, making plays in the field that look impossible to anyone else. Every center fielder since who looks great in the field and makes an incredible catch, or throws someone out deep in center field, gets compared to Willie. Because Willie made so many plays like that. Like catching the ball over his shoulder in the 1954 World Series against the New York Yankees. The biggest catch of the season on the biggest stage, made by Willie Mays.

I don’t believe we’ve seen a better outfielder at the plate, or on the field since Willie Mays retired in 1973. Willie and Mickey Mantle, retired in 1967 and 73 respectfully and we haven’t had two better players in the outfield and at the plate as outfielders since those two great players. One of the tests of greatness, is not just how you look compared to your peers. Which is obviously important to determine the best players of that era. But more important is how you compared with the players who came before you and after. Willie has been retired since 1974, over forty-years ago. And he still looks like the best player ever post-Babe Ruth. The only other players I would consider would be Mickey Mantle or Joe DiMaggio. Willie, was not just a once in a generation ballplayer, but perhaps once in a century as well. And is truly one of the best ever.
Source:Classic MLB 11

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Cool Commies & Other Myths

Source:Liberty Pen- Communist leader and revolutionary Che Guevara. 

Source:The New Democrat

I believe this so-called movement towards Communists and communism from Hollywood and their fans, has to do with pop culture and faddism. Che Guevara, is considered cool with this community, especially with the Far-Left in Hollywood and outside of Hollywood. He was a revolutionary and every time you’re a revolutionary from the Left or Far-Left in this community, you’re automatically considered cool, or awesome. And people want to be seen as supporters of people like Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, because they want to be considered cool, or awesome as well.

And as far as Hollywood, if something is considered cool, or awesome and it doesn’t come from Hollywood and especially if it comes from the Far-Left, like lets say Communists, to use as examples, you’ll see actors and other entertainers jump on the bandwagon so fast, that the bandwagon will collapse. And people will have to walk to the latest rally supporting this cause, or that figure, or whatever it might be. The whole so-called political correctness movement, that today’s so-called Progressives support, is a perfect example of that. Where you’ll have a Ben Afflect, or someone else, jump to the defense and try to censor anything that is critical about who this community supports.

The so-called cool commies rave, or whatever, is exactly that. Che, is considered cool, because he was against individualism and private enterprise, was a revolutionary, he wore a thick hipster beard and perhaps went years without shaving, or even trimming his beard. Which is a common theme with Americans under 30 right now, especially on the Left. But there’s no real hard-core political support for communism and a lot of other New-Left movements in America. At least not coming from Hollywood. Which is as about as individualistic and capitalistic a community that we have in America. That is always looking for the next profit and would probably fight to the death to prevent America from becoming a Communist State.
Source:Liberty Pen

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Phillip Hughes: Lets Get Redskins Legend Joe Jacoby in The Pro Football Hall of Fame

Source: HTTR-

Source:The New Democrat

If you look at the Redskins of the 1980s and early 1990s, great teams with their share of great players, but not teams that had Hall of Fame players at every position. These were really good, if not great teams, that won three Super Bowls and four Conference Championships and played in five Conference Final’s, from 1982-91. You have to have great players to do that and the Redskins did in their leadership. But similar to the Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Miami Dolphins of the 1970s, New England Patriots of the 2000s, they had some great players, but with a lot of very good players behind their stars. And great coaches on both sides of the ball.

Offensive tackle Joe Jacoby, was one of the Redskins great players. If you look at how the Redskins dominated the 1982 NFC Playoffs and then won that Super Bowl and manhandled the Dolphins up front on both sides of the ball, especially in the second half, Joe Jacoby, was dominating in that game and leading those charges. But go to the NFC Championship, before the Super Bowl and how the Redskins OL dominated Ed Jones and Randy White and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys defensive line, Big Jac, was consistently clearing his man out-of-the-way. And he and offensive guard Russ Grimm, who is already in the Hall of Fame, were leading those charges in that game. John Riggins and The Hogs, ran the ball down the throat of the Cowboys defense in that game.

Go to Super Bowl 22 against the Denver Broncos, again Timmy Smith, great game running the ball and Doug Williams with a career game throwing the ball. But the Broncos defense in a lot of those plays were barely in the picture, because Big Jac and The Hogs were consistently clearing them out-of-the-way. And opening up huge holes for Tim Smith and giving Doug Williams, five minutes each play to decide who to throw the ball to. And the 1991 Hogs, might be the Redskins best offensive line of all-time. I mean, when you’re towards the top of the league in scoring, passing and running and your quarterback is only sacked eight times all year, its hard to argue with that. Joe Jacoby, now playing guard for the Redskins next to Jim Lachey, was a big part of that as well.

Joe Jacoby, is one of the leaders of a team that wins two Super Bowls and three conference championships in the 1980s and is on the 1980s NFL All Decade team and plays in four Pro Bowls and arguably the anchor of the best offensive line of at least the 1980s. If that is not evidence that this great big offensive tackle, one of the first great big OT in the NFL, should be in the Hall of Fame, then a lot of great o-lineman, who are already in the Hall of Fame, perhaps shouldn’t be there. The Hall of Fame, was late on Art Monk, perhaps one of the top five all around receivers of all-time. They were late on Russ Grimm, perhaps the best guard of his era, who could also play tackle and center. They’re even later on Joe Jacoby, but his time will come, if not next year, certainly soon after that. Too great of a player to leave out.
Source:Washington Redskins Fans