American Thinker: Christopher Chantrill: The Four Freedoms: 75 Years of Liberal Betrayal

Source:American Thinker right-wing populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat 

“In the second half of the 2000s liberals did a fine job of blaming Bush for everything that went wrong in the US. His “neo-con” supporters, they asserted, were just as bad.

Now that President Obama and his signature legislation are a twin disaster the same opportunity beckons for conservatives. It’s not just Obama, it’s the whole liberal project that created this mess. So the road to 2016 involves discrediting Obama, but also the whole liberal ruling class.

A good place to start would be FDR’s Four Freedoms, for when the campaign to elect the un-Obama kicks off in 2016 it will be 75 years since Franklin Delano Roosevelt unveiled his Four Freedoms on January 6, 1941. In case you forgot, the freedoms were:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Worship

Freedom from Want

Freedom from Fear” 

From the American Thinker

I’ve seen a lot of dumb blog posts before that have close to absolutely no truth in them. But this post from Christopher Chantrill is right up there. It is nothing more than partisan, right-wing, talking points, about what liberalism is supposed to be about and what Liberals are supposed to believe in.

First of all, if you do not believe in Freedom of Speech even as it relates to negative speech about groups of people, or even hate speech about groups of people, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is built around Freedom of Speech and Association for all. Without fear of government especially the central government bringing down negative consequences towards you.

As far as the religious aspect from Mr. Chantrill: (just to be nice) there are of course Atheists and even religious bigots in America who use their free speech rights to put down religion in America even if they aren’t big fans of free speech in America. And there are fundamentalist religious believers who use their free speech rights to put down other religions. Even if they aren’t big fans of free speech either. But the Atheists tend to be on the Far-Left people who worship the central state instead. And people on the Libertarian-Right who worship their notion of liberty instead.

To have Liberals who don’t believe in free speech, you would have to a Conservatives who don’t believe in private enterprise. Those things simply do not go together, meaning you can’t be a Liberal who doesn’t believe in free speech and you can’t be a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise.

Now people can call themselves whatever the hell they want too. That is also part of our free speech protections. But for me to take you seriously as far as how you label your own politics, you have to believe in and practice the values of that philosophy. And not just use the label. 

American Thinker: Trevor Thomas: Neal Boortz, Libertarianism & Moral Government

Source:American Thinker is a right-wing populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat

"While substituting for Sean Hannity recently, Neal Boortz went into another of his "libertarian" rants against "social" conservatives. Taking note of the recent flak involving Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty," while pleading that the fate of the republic may depend upon Republicans retaking the U.S. Senate, Boortz forebodingly predicted that Republicans would fail in this task because, "they [Republicans] simply cannot resist the urge, the impulse to get into this social conservatism."

Long known for his disdain of the "social" (I prefer "moral") issues, like many others, Boortz masquerades as libertarian while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our time.

Contrary to what self-described libertarians such as Boortz and John Stossel would have us believe, if conservatives simply shut up about issues like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal responsibility, there's no guarantee when it comes to election time. It is a long-held myth, typically perpetuated by self-described liberals in the mainstream media but also by self-described libertarians, that whenever the moral issues are prominent in elections, conservatives lose. As I have noted before, Jeffrey Bell in his book The Case for Polarized Politics helps dispel this myth.

"Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," notes Bell. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix -- I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant "social" issues in America today are sexual issues. Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like, are not hot political topics merely because they relate to people's personal lives. They are hot political topics because they reside deep within the moral realm of our culture.

Whether liberals or libertarians care to admit it, somebody's morality is going to govern us. Libertarians would do well to examine America's history before ranting about the morality of today's [Christian] conservatives. Like our founders, most conservatives today understand well that religion (especially Christianity) is an indispensible tenet of liberty.

America's "Schoolmaster" Noah Webster bore this out in his 1832 History of the United States when he wrote that "our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion." Webster rightly concluded that, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles... to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government." 

Additionally, and again contrary to popular myth and what pundits like Mr. Boortz would have us believe, Christian conservatives aren't the aggressors in the so-called "culture wars." It has been liberals with the aid of those like-minded in our courts and our media who have forced their moral views on our culture. Whether it's abortion, the environment, public displays of religion, marriage, or other issues, liberals have taken the view of what is typically a small minority and imposed their will on the country.

In more ways than one, the results have been disastrous and (speaking of debt) expensive. As an example, consider the environment and the myth of man-made global warming. Starting out with a small minority, through judicial fiat and a relentless media campaign, liberals began preaching that through the use of fossil fuels, human beings were warming the globe and that (of course) drastic political measures needed to be taken to "save the planet."

Though most Americans do not consider global warming a significant issue for our government, decades of propaganda have taken a toll on our nation. For too long, conservatives didn't do enough to combat the tactics of liberals on this issue, and today far too many Americans believe the lie that the actions of humans are warming the planet. So much so that the last Republican-elected president, George W. Bush, signed a significant piece of legislation that was premised on the notion of man-made global warming. 

After signing the Energy Independence and Security Act, President Bush declared, "Today... We make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding production of renewable fuels and giving future generations a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure."

According to the New York Times, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Bush's sentiments by describing "the bill as groundbreaking because it would reduce oil imports, cut production of the gases that scientists blame for global warming and significantly increase the efficiency of the nation's auto fleet." 

Boortz would do well to note that this is what happens when conservatives acquiesce to the positions of liberals. We get conservatives at the highest level parroting liberalspeak and the government spending billions of dollars on a problem that doesn't exist -- even telling us what light bulbs we can use. However, this is nothing compared to the slaughter of tens of millions of children in the womb or the legal redefinition of the institution upon which our republic rests.

Libertarians like Boortz can moan and groan about the moral positions of "social" conservatives all they want, but it doesn't change the facts. All law is rooted in some morality; thus somebody's morality is going to "determine the fate of this republic." Libertarians need to decide with whom it's easier to live: those who share the morality of the vast majority of our founders, who gave us the greatest document for self governance ever created by men; or those who seek fundamentally to change this republic into something that conservatives and libertarians both will lament." 

From the American Thinker

Los Angeles Times: 'Why JFK Still Matters'

Source:Los Angeles Times- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th President of the United States (1961-63)

Source:The New Democrat

"This week even Americans who weren’t alive on Nov. 22, 1963, are reading, writing and reflecting about the assassination of the 35th president 50 years ago. In the view of some critics, the fascination with both John F. Kennedy and his assassination is disproportionate and media-driven. We disagree. Despite political and personal weaknesses that were widely acknowledged within a few years of his death, Kennedy was a transformative figure, not just a charismatic celebrity. And his violent death rightly is remembered as a rupture in what had seemed an age of optimism and inexorable progress.

True, much of the adulation for Kennedy during his life and since originated in arguably superficial attributes: his youth, personal attractiveness and sophistication. But his election at age 43 to succeed the 70-year-old Dwight D. Eisenhower represented a generational shift in American leadership that was as much a source of popular excitement as Kennedy’s individual qualities. As he said in his inaugural address, “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.” Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism also made his election historic. Difficult as it may be for younger Americans to conceive, anti-Catholicism was endemic in American society half a century ago, and Kennedy’s election was nearly as dramatic a breakthrough in that era as the election of the first African American president was in this one.

Kennedy was also forward-looking in his policies. On June 11, 1963, the day on which National Guardsmen escorted two black students as they enrolled at the University of Alabama, Kennedy declared that equality for African Americans was a “moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.” He announced that he was asking Congress to enact legislation to ensure equal access to public accommodations. It is true that the Civil Rights Act became law not during Kennedy’s term but during the administration of his less charismatic (but more politically adroit) successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. But Kennedy’s acknowledgment of the urgency of racial equality allowed supporters of the law to portray it as an homage to his memory. 

Was Kennedy a great president? Probably not. He wasn’t even a good one, according to the JFK revisionists who constitute at least as much of an industry as those who mythologize “Camelot.” Yes, they concede, Kennedy deftly defused the Cuban missile crisis with a combination of public resolve and a private openness to compromise — but perhaps the Soviet Union wouldn’t have installed missiles in Cuba in the first place if Kennedy hadn’t approved the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. It’s a reasonable point.

We also now know that the telegenic husband and father of young children was serially unfaithful to his wife. Yet despite scores of biographies and endless tell-alls, the revisionists never have been able to dispel the Kennedy mystique.

Any assassination of a president is wrenching for the nation, and some of the admiration of JFK is refracted through the trauma of Nov. 22, 1963. But there was a special poignancy to JFK’s passing because of his youth, his optimism and his ability to inspire. It’s neither surprising nor lamentable that he remains a compelling and beloved figure half a century later." 

From the Los Angeles Times

I think a lot of the talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy 50 years later, has to do with the personal appeal of the man. So I agree with the Los Angeles Times on this, because everyone from center-right Republicans, to far-left Democrats and far-leftists outside of the Democratic Party, have something that they like about the man. 

Conservatives love the fact that Jack Kennedy believed that Americans, as well as American businesses, were overtaxed, even wealthy Americans were overtaxed. JFK was also a staunch anti-Communist and a big believer a large, strong, national defense for America and that we couldn't lose to Russia on anything that's positive. 

Liberals (meaning the real Liberals, like JFK) loved that fact that JFK was forward-thinking (a true Progressive) and believed that government had a role in seeing that everyone had a shot to succeed in life and just need that opportunity to make the best out of life that they can, but that government couldn't do everything for everybody. He was also, perhaps along with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the strongest proponents of liberal democracy for all Americans. 

Socialists (of far-leftists, if you prefer) loved the fact that JFK talked about peace, even with Russia and that famous peace speech that he gave at American University. Hipster-leftists (as if they're leftists who are not hipsters) loved the fact that JFK was hip or cool, handsome, tall, good-looking, etc, into American pop culture and very familiar with it, had a lot of cool celebrity friends. 

JFK for American politics, was like the hit NBC TV show from the 1970s and 80s called Fantasy Island: there's something for everyone about him and on that island, that everyone can like and admire.

Hail To The Redskins: 'Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame Class'

Source:Hail To The Redskins- Redskins OT Joe Jacoby, I believe during Super Bowl 26 in 1992

Source:The New Democrat

"Former Washington Redskins tackle Joe Jacoby is a semi-finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the second straight year. 

Jacoby made the cut when the initial list of 126 nominees was trimmed to 25 modern-era semifinalists announced Wednesday. Jacoby played for the Redskins from 1981 to 1993 and was one of the beloved “Hogs”. If elected, he would join guard Russ Grimm in representing the Hogs in the Hall of Fame. 

The 25 semifinalists include Marvin Harrison, Tony Dungy, Walter Jones and Derrick Brooks, who made the cut in their first year of Hall of Fame eligibility. Jimmy Johnson, Joe Jacoby, Steve Wisniewski, Morten Andersen, Steve Atwater, Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Don Coryell, Roger Craig, Terrell Davis, Edward DeBartolo Jr., Kevin Greene, Charles Haley, John Lynch, Karl Mecklenburg, Andre Reed, Will Shields, Michael Strahan, Paul Tagliabue, Aeneas Williams and George Young. 

The list of modern-era semifinalists will be cut to 15 on Jan. 8. They’ll be joined by seniors committee nominees Ray Guy and Claude Humphrey. The select media members who serve as Hall of Fame voters will elect four to seven candidates during a meeting scheduled for Feb. 1, the day before the Super Bowl."  

From Hail To The Redskins 

To be blunt about this: it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. 

Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame. And Big Jac (as he was called) is right there with the top OT’s of this era. 

Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.

American Thinker: Sierra Rayne: 'Big Government & Lower Economic Growth'

Source:American Thinker right-wing populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat

"Between 1800 and 1916, total government expenditures in the United States generally ranged between 2% and 3% of GDP.  There were higher peaks for the War of 1812 (5.1%) and the Civil War (13.8%), but in both cases pre-war government spending levels were re-established within about a decade after the end of the conflict.  Even after WWI, the wartime peak of government spending (24.2% of GDP) declined rapidly to a slightly higher than historical spending base (3%) by the mid-1920s. 

And then in 1930, it began: the long, unrelenting rise in government expenditures up to the current levels of >40% of GDP.  Nearly half of the entire American economy has been effectively nationalized.  As recently as the early 1950s, government expenditures as a percentage of GDP were more than threefold lower than at present.  The effect of the Korean War is barely noticeable in this climb.  WWII saw a rapid mobilization/demobilization of the government-based economy, but the pre-1930 low levels of government spending were never to return.

Gross public debt tells a similar story. Up to the start of WWI, the inter-war public debt minima were between 0% and 3% of GDP. Debt was accumulated in wartime, and eventually paid off. Much like after the Civil War, the WWI debt was being paid off until 1930, when the era of permanent big government began. After that, the debt increased from 16% of GDP up to its current level of >100%. The WWII peak came and went within a couple decades, but the relentless march of big government precluded any chance of returning to the state of effectively zero public debt that had existed less than only a half-century before.

What effect has the era of big government had on economic growth?  To definitively isolate government size effects on economic growth is essentially impossible.  Econometrics, like all other applications of multiple regression techniques in the social and natural sciences, is highly dependent on what dependent variables are chosen in the regression, which are left out, any time lags between variables, and how correlative-causative relationships are interpreted.  But what we can say with certainty is that the era of American big government in the latter half of the 20th century and first part of the 21st century correlates with the lowest period of non-major wartime real per-capita economic growth since 1800. 

Using historical GDP and population data from Christopher Chantrill's invaluable USGovernmentSpending.com database, along with corresponding consumer price index data from The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the following trend of real per-capita GDP in constant 2012 dollars can be constructed... 

You can read the rest of this article at American Thinker. Or not, completely your choice. 

Republicans like to point to the 1980s as their utopia when it comes to economic growth in the American economy. Even though the Federal Government grew under President Ronald Reagan and the Republican Senate that he had for the first 6 years of his presidency, to deal with the Cold War, as well as the so-called War On Drugs, and rising crime in America. 

Mainstream Democrats (meaning center-right and center-left) like to point to the 1990s as their utopia for economic growth in the American economy. Even though the Federal Government shrunk under President Bill Clinton and the one Democratic Congress (House and Senate) that he had his first two years and the 3 Republican Congress's that he had during his last 6 years. The government shrunk, the budget was balanced, because the Cold War ended and America wanted to pay off its budget deficit. to deal with rising inflation and interest rates from the early 1990s. 

It's one think to say that the American economy would be better off with a smaller Federal Government. The question is: how do you get there? 

You don't see any Republicans calling for gutting the defense budget, and eliminating Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, etc. Talking points sound cool in partisan debates. But to govern, you have to live and operate in the real world and be able to accept and deal with reality.

Leonard P. Liggio: 'Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- with a look at Leonard P. Liggio.

Source:The New Democrat

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University’s School of Law. 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University's School of Law." 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

Source:Libertarianism.Org

From Libertarianism.Org

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Jonathan Rauch: '20 Years of Political Correctness'

Source:Reason Magazine- an anti-free speech rally against author Salmon Rushdie.

Source:The New Democrat

"The great advantage of a society that embraces robust and often-angry debate, "is not that it does not make mistakes," says Jonathan Rauch, "it's that it catches mistakes very, very quickly." For Rauch, such dialogue is at the heart of what he calls the "liberal science" of producing and refining knowledge. 

A National Magazine Award-winning journalist and author, Rauch's path-breaking study of political corrrectness, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, has just been released in a 20th-anniversary edition by the Cato Institute. The new version includes an introduction by George Will and a powerful afterword by Rauch about how calls for censorship and regulation of speech have changed over the past two decades. 

Nick Gillespie sat down with Rauch to discuss why free speech cannot and should not be abridged, even when it causes pain and discomfort. Rauch talks about how the weak defense of Salman Rushdie after receiving Islamic death threats radicalized his views and the inspiration he draws from figures such as Frank Kameny, a pioneering gay rights activist who never called for the censoring of hate speech."  

From Reason Magazine 

I’m not a fan of political correctness myself, because I am a Liberal not because I’m not a Liberal. I’m against all racial and ethnic slurs and all other types of slurs that try to paint one group of people as they are all the way. But again as a Liberal I believe in the First Amendment and the ability for people to speak freely, as long as they aren’t threatening or libeling people in a negative way or inciting violence in public. And those are really the only exceptions we have to our First Amendment in the United States.

Just because people have negative, bigoted and ignorant views about others, doesn’t mean they do not have a right to express those opinions. As long as they aren’t calling for those people to be harmed physically or economically in any way. 

If you really are a Liberal, you believe in the First Amendment and are in favor of it. And you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is about one’s ability to speak freely and assemble in public and in private. And you take away free speech, you do not have much if any remaining of what can be called a liberal democracy. Because you are taking people’s freedom away from them.

So when I hear these political speech codes from people who are supposed to be on the Left, because someone or a group of people are saying things that these leftist groups find offensive, because it offends people they support, generally racial or religious minorities, or political minorities on the Far-Left, like Communists and Socialists: One, I disagree with them because we all as Americans including the Far-Left have the First Amendment right to express ourselves and have our own opinions. Including the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Two, it gives me the impression that some at least on the Far-Left do not believe in free speech, or at least free speech that they disagree with. But the other thing that gets me as a Liberal is when I hear supporters of what is called the political correctness movement, people who are supposed to be Liberals, when of course they are not, because they believe in a form of fascism: "You can say what you want and believe in what, until you offend us. And that is when we are going to try to shut you up." And there is nothing actually liberal about that.

It is pretty simple: if you are a Liberal, you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. But perhaps a Fascist either from the Far-Left or Far-Right. 

Bigotry is an awful thing and in many cases illegal in the United States when it is put into action. But that doesn’t mean Americans do not have a right to be stupid. It just means they do not always have a right to act on those stupid beliefs when they hurt innocent people with them. Like denying people jobs based on race, ethnicity, gender. (To use as examples) The cure for stupidity in America is good education, including more free speech. Not trying to lock everything that you don't like about America, including other Americans into some closet hoping no one ever hears from or sees them again. 

American Thinker: Jim Yardley: 'A Different View of Paternalism'

Source:American Thinker right-wing-populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The word "paternalism" has been bandied about concerning the various pathetic defenses of Barack Obama's now infamous claim that "If you like your health care, you can keep it. Period."

Well, yes, you can actually keep the health care you had before Obamacare was crammed through Congress. The caveat that was always unstated by the president, by any and all Democrats in Congress or the administration and by the mainstream media was that you could keep it if, and only if, it complied with every aspect of the new (Orwellian) Affordable Care Act.

Certain people who might generally be viewed as conservative have noted with mild horror that this is governmental paternalism.

Betsy McCaughey, in her article published at Accuracy in Media's website, says:

Obama's pledge never matched up to the actual law. The law epitomizes "Washington knows best" paternalism. Everyone must have the one-size-fits-all health plan designed by "experts."

Paternalism is, in their view, clearly evidence that the government thinks that you are not capable, or intellectually competent, of making a rational evaluation of what is really necessary for your own well-being.

However, it should be noted that like cancer, there are stages to paternalism. A common dictionary definition of the term would be... 

From the American Thinker 

There are two forms of paternalism at least as I see it: one that obviously comes from our parents as shocking as that may sound and I believe the only people it should come from. And as annoying as and in some cases positive parental paternalism may sound, our parents at least tend to have our best interests at heart even when they go too far.

But then there is what I call governmental paternalism whether it comes from governmental laws, or proposals to create new paternalistic laws and they are basically built around the notion even if they are done with the best intentions, that government knows best what the people themselves need for their own good. 

Things like proposals to outlaw homosexual activity or pornography from the Far-Right. To having the Federal Government regulate marriage in the United States.

Then there are paternalistic proposals from the Far-Left in trying to regulate what people can eat, drink or smoke for our own good. Because paternalists on the Far-Left believe they know best what people should be eating, drinking and smoking. 

And as much as right-wingers especially those right-wingers who may have some governmental paternalistic views when it comes to social issues, like to label the Affordable Care Act as paternalistic, it is not. Because what it does with the minimum health insurance requirement is to say that everyone is required to have enough health insurance to meet their own individual health care needs.

So people in America can’t past their own health care costs on to other people. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require people to live healthy and take care of themselves. 

What the ACA says is that we are all responsible for our own health care costs at least those of us who can afford our own health insurance. And for those of us who choose to live unhealthy, they can still do that, but they won’t be able to pass the costs of their unhealthy decisions on to other people.

WGN Sports: NBA 1985 (1/02) Chicago Bulls @ Philadelphia 76ers: Full Game

Source:WGN Sports- Philadelphia 76ers center Moses Malone, camping out at the foul line.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Philadelphia 76ers vs Chicago Bulls (01/02/1985)”

From Hoops Encyclopedia

The 76ers still had a lot of talent in 1985. Just look at their starting lineup featuring four Hall of Famers in it with Julius Erving, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley and Maurice Cheeks. 

The Bulls were a young and up-incoming team, but most of the guys who won championships with the Bulls in the early 1990s were not there yet. With the 76ers having won the NBA Finals in 1983 and not even making it back to the Eastern Conference Finals in 1984. 

The Bulls of this period, other than maybe Orlando Woolridge, who was pretty solid and an up and down Steve Johnson at power forward, this was still the Air Jordan Show in Chicago. With the help that the Bulls needed to be a real Eastern Conference contender, about three years away with Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright.

Fishy Paw: Airplane (1980) Julie Hagerty: ‘Everything is Fine Up Here: Oh by the Way, Can Anyone Fly a Plane?’

Source:Fishy Paw- Julie Hagerty playing the head stewardess in Airplane.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Is there anyone onboard who knows how to fly a plane?”

From Fishy Paw

Everything is fine up here in the cockpit. Oh by the way can anyone fly this plane so we do not crash? That’s right, the only problem that we have in the cockpit of this commercial passenger plane, is that we don’t have anyone who can fly the plane.

Which is no worst than doctors who are about to perform brain surgery on someone so they can save that person’s life, but do not have anyone who knows how to perform brain surgery. Or an English teacher who doesn’t speak any English.

Other than these issues, there’s nothing to be worried about. No reason to panic, I mean seriously what is the worst thing that could possibly happen with one being able to fly a plane that is already in the air, the plane crashing? I mean come on! The plane is already insured, so the money there will to replace the plane. And most of the passengers are wealthy anyway, so they probably have life insurance.

I mean seriously, these passengers didn’t have to get on this plane to begin with.

Democracy Now: Kevin Phillips- 'On Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics'

Source:Democracy Now interviewing author and political historian Kevin Phillips.

Source:FreeState Now

"With the Republican Party in a state of turmoil following Mitt Romney's loss three weeks ago, we begin today's show with a guest who was once one of the most influential Republican strategists. In 1969 Kevin Phillips wrote the groundbreaking book, "The Emerging Republican Majority." Newsweek described the book as the "political bible of the Nixon administration." After a series of best-selling books on the Bush family, Wall Street and the American theocracy,  Phillips is looking back at the roots of the American Revolution in his new book, "1775: A Good Year for Revolution." "What happened that set the United States in motion in the mid 1770s is still relevant in some ways because what it showed was that you sometimes have to have a lot of very disagreeable politics to make progress. That you don't get anywhere by having all kinds of nice slogans and by trying to barter every difference with a cliche and pretend thats all's well and the United States is in wonderful shape," Phillips says. "The United States is not in wonderful shape and it needs to get back some of that spunk that it had when people were willing to talk very bluntly about harsh and tough measures." 

From Democracy Now

What Democracy Now really wanted to talk to author/historian Kevin Phillips about, was the thing and political strategy that remade the Republican Party to the point that it is today. It was a strategy that was co-authored by Richard Nixon in the mid and late 1960s and by at the time Republican strategist Kevin Phillips. What most people in America know as the Southern Strategy. 

Pre-1968 or so, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center-right, conservative party, with a right-progressive faction in it, led by Nelson Rockefeller and others. The John Birch Society and others who are part of the populist-far-right in America, were Republicans as well back then. But pre-1968, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center right party that's common in Britain and Europe. 

What the Southern Strategy did, was bring in what's called the Christian-Right in America, as well as people who opposed the civil rights and cultural revolution of the 1960s and into the Republican Party. To go along with the Classical Conservatives, people who Republican populists view as elitists and RINOS, into the party as well.

MH Jets: NHL-1987-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 6-Edmonton Oilers @ Philadelphia Flyers: Third Period

Source:MH Jets- The Edmonton Oilers vs the Philadelphia Flyers, in the 1987 NHL Stanley Cup Finals.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Here are the last 7 minutes or so of the memorable Game 6 of the 1987 Cup Finals. The action is picked up just as Glenn Anderson took a high sticking penalty that led to Brian Propp’s game tying goal. 1:24 later J.J. Daigneault scores to give the Flyers a 3-2 lead. The file is too long so it has been split into 2 parts.”

From MH Jets

I only remember reading about this series and seeing highlights of it on some sports show the next day. I was eleven years old at this point and my family didn’t have cable yet and this series wasn’t on American network TV. But I knew the Flyers were really good at this point. I remember them being beating my Capitals in the conference playoffs that year in game 7 and in overtime.

I hated the Flyers back then and I still do. They were the Capitals arch-rival back then and I still consider them to be, especially since we are back in the same division. Have a great history of great tough physical games each other. Which both teams playing a similar style of tough hockey. Witch clutch scoring and solid goaltending.

This series represents NHL hockey at its best. Two great all around teams with a lot of skill, who are also physical. And the NHL needs to get back to that, instead of trying to make hockey like indoor soccer in order to pick up young American fans who don’t appreciate defense in any sport. And are only interested in seeing a lot of scoring.

Denim Blog: Blake Lively

Source:Celebrity Style Guide- Blake Lively, in jeans in boots.

Source:Real Life Journal

“blake lively rich and skinny jeans2 Celebs in Denim: Blake Lively in Rich &… 

From Daniel Radcliffes 

You can see why sexy celebrities perhaps especially female ones are so popular in skinny jeans, especially with boots and why they get so much attention in that combo while they are out in public. Perhaps especially on Facebook and YouTube. But also why so many celebrity interest bloggers and I’m not one of them for the most part, but why they blog about celebrities sexy women especially celebrities in their jeans and boots.

Because when female celebrities they wear that combo people notice right away and their jeans and boots get noticed right away. Which is great business for everyone involved. Blake Lively a young, gorgeous, woman, with good height and beautiful legs, as well as butt, is a perfect example of this. When you’re that attractive especially when you’re young and female, you want to the rest of the world to know as well. And skinny jeans with boots, is the prefect way to do that.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Politician Taking a Polygraph Test (1982)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- with a look at American politicians when they are caught lying on national TV and forced to tell the truth.

Source:Real Life Journal

“How To Tell When A Politician is Lying – New Technology To Simplify Campaigns. This video shows new technology that will help sort out truth from lies in political campaigns.”

From Reverend Ry 

If all American politicians were required to take polygraph tests, no American politician would ever get elected yet reelected in America. Because Americans tend to like being told what they want to hear and not what is the truth.

Like saying: “we can do this, but it costs money, which means I’ll have to raise your taxes or cut spending somewhere else”. And when politicians tell the truth, they tend to pay a heavy political price for that. Truth serum would be death penalty for the careers of American career politicians.

But imagine what a bad politician would sound like on truth serum.

“Senator Jones, why did you vote against the gun control bill? Because the NRA has me on in their back pockets, both back pockets, as well as the front pockets. Yeah, they bought me off. Oh be the way, my constituents aren’t going to know about this, are they? Because then I would actually have to get a real job and work for a living”.

Or you ask a crooked politician why they voted against the school reform bill that increases standards on teachers and students. Imagine a crooked politician on truth serum answering that one. The crooked politician with a 90 plus approval rating of the teacher unions might say this:

“Because in that bill, school districts would be able to fire bad teachers. Which would mean people would be out of jobs, even the bad teachers. And I rather have bad teachers teaching, even if that means their students are not learning, then for them not to be working at all. Or having to do something that they are more qualified for. Like flipping burgers and taking parking tickets, asking customers if they want paper or plastic. Oh by the way, teacher unions have bought every pocket I have in all of my pants”.

But we wouldn’t need truth serum or polygraph tests for crooked politicians, if we simply had an educated electorate. And what does that mean? 

A lot of educated voters who know who they are voting for, before they actually vote for that person or decide not to vote for them. Which sounds like commonsense I know, but again we’re talking about America where commonsense is not always common, because it is not always popular. And Americans tend to prefer to feel good, then to know what is good for them. Our political system is a perfect example of that.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- ‘A Conversation On The Minimum Wage (1980)’

Source:Liberty Pen- this is from Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series.

Source:FreeState Now

“A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen  

“A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. "

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Walter E. Williams participating in this debate.

I’m in favor of a living wage for multiple reasons, but I’ll give you a practical one: if you want to low-income workers to work, instead of staying home and just collecting public assistance, you not only want a minimum wage, but you want low-income and low-skilled workers to not only be able to at least get a minimum wage, but have that wage higher than what they could get if they didn’t work at all.

For practical reasons, we should not only have a living wage, but have what Professor Milton Friedman called a negative income tax or have subsidize employment, where low-income, low-skilled people would not only work, but then get that income matched by the government up to a point, to encourage these folks to work and not stay at home, even if they have kids or other relatives to take care of.

CBS Sports: NBA 1987-ECQF-Game 5-Philadelphia 76ers @ Milwaukee Bucks: Last Minutes of Julius Erving’s NBA Career

Source:Jean-Sebastian Blondell- Dr. J Julius Erving, closing out his brilliant NBA career, in game 5 of the 1987 NBA-ECQF, in Milwaukee.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Those are the last few minutes of Dr J’s successful professionnal basketball career. This is game 5 of the 1987 Eastern Conference First round between the Milwaukee Bucks and Erving’s Philadelphia 76ers. Dr J would end up scoring 24 points, but Charles Barkley’s no-show (5/16 shooting) against a great Jack Sikma (18 points, 21 rebounds) ended up being too much to overcome for the Sixers.” 

From Jean-Sebastian Blondell 

A bad way for The Doctor Julius Erving to end his great sixteen-year professional basketball career as a player, in a blowout loss on the road to the Milwaukee Bucks of all teams. Because the Bucks and 76ers played a lot of great series’ and games against each other in the 1980s. And Bucks beat the 76ers in the playoffs. So this was probably one of the last ways that The Doctor wanted to end his brilliant career as perhaps the greatest all around small forward of all-time.

But his career ending this way wasn’t because of him. It wasn’t his best game obviously, but 1987 was a rough year for the 76ers that had all sorts of injuries and had to play hard just to make the Eastern Conference Playoffs. And because of all the series injuries, we’re never a real threat to dethrone the defend NBA champion Boston Celtics.

So it’s not surprising that Julius’s career ended this way, but it is a damn shame. It would’ve been great to see at least one more classic playoff series between the Bird Celtics and the Erving 76ers. But the Bucks weren’t going to allow that to happen.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman: ‘A Conversation On The Free Market’

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market, in 1980.

Source:FreeState Now

“From Milton’s award-winning series, “Free To Choose. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

We need to get past the notions of free market and free enterprise, because those things simply do not exist in the developed world as much as Libertarians or economic Libertarians, like to use these terms. What economic Libertarians are talking about things that aren’t real.

Any economic system that is subjected to taxes and regulations which exist everywhere in the developed world, as well as developing world are not part of any free market. What developed nations or developing nations that are developing fast like Brazil or Mexico or China have, as well as the developed world have are private markets and private enterprise.

Private enterprise, is a private economic system run by individuals. But subjected to taxes and regulations by government. To perform government services that individuals consume.

And the difference between free enterprise and private enterprise or private markets and free markets and private enterprise and free enterprise, is that in a private enterprise system like in America or Canada (to use as examples) is that they have private enterprise economic system. Where a lot or most of the economy is in private hands owned by people, not government. Which is a private sector, but these private enterprises are subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

If these countries had free markets and free enterprise, these private companies wouldn’t be subjected to taxes and regulations. Private companies, aren’t free to be bigoted towards their employees, or potential employees, or customers. Or free to pollute the air. They would be in a free market however.

In a true free enterprise system, (and not a made up one) private companies could essentially if not in complete actuality, do whatever they want under law with their companies. Because they wouldn’t have to pay any taxes, or have to deal with regulations, like monopoly laws, because there would essentially be no rules of the road. Because it would be a free market economic system. That is just not the economic system that we have in America, or anywhere else in the developed world.

As much as Ayn Randian’s dream about in their fantasies for that to come about, if you truly believe in a free market and free enterprise, then you would be against things like corporate welfare. And other taxpayer-funded investments in the economy. And let the true free market decide the success’ and failures of private business’s. Why, because you don’t want government involvement in the economy and taking taxpayer money. But many so-called Conservatives, support corporate welfare and don’t even view it as welfare. So let’s stop throwing around labels and terms as if they don’t have any real meaning.

We obviously don’t have a socialist economic system at least in a pure form. And no developed country does. (And thank God for that!) But again no developed country in the world has an economic system where charity and economic assistance, is in complete private hands. Where taxes and regulations don’t exist. Which is a great thing, because if we did we wouldn’t have the national highway system (to use as an example) because that wouldn’t be very profitable for private companies.

Liam Leahy: NBA 1986- ‘The Boston Celtics Win Sweet Sixteen’

Source:Liam Leahy- perhaps you already know who this guy is.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“1985-1986 Boston Celtics – “Sweet-Sixteen” The road to the championship…

From Liam Leahy

1986 was a very interesting NBA season with the upstart Houston Rockets with their twin towers Hakeem and Ralph Sampson. And their very good and up-incoming backcourt Mitchell Wiggins Louis Lloyd and of course the Rockets upsetting the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Finals. And of course the 1986 Boston Celtics who had the MVP in forward Larry Bird who was the best player in the NBA in 1986. And leading the Celtics to the 1986 NBA Finals Championship over the Houston Rockets. 

Perhaps the 1986 Celtics were the best passing team and big team of all-time with all of their stars and former stars upfront, in Larry Bird a 6’9 small forward who was big and strong enough to be an all-star power forward. But with great passing, ball handling and shooting skills of the great small forward and the best small forward of all-time that he definitely is. And the two great big man down low in power forward Kevin McHale and center Robert Parish. And if that is not great enough, Bill Walton off the bench.

But 1986 wasn’t just about the Celtics and Rockets. You also had the Lakers taking a step back and not just failing to defend their 1985 championship, but not even getting back to the NBA Finals. You had the emergence in the Eastern Conference Playoffs with the Atlanta Hawks who looked like they were going to be an Eastern contender for years to come led by Dominique Wilkins. And the emergence of the Detroit Pistons as a serious Eastern Conference contender as well.

1986 was a great year for the NBA, because it proved that the NBA was more than just the Lakers and Celtics and even Philadelphia 76ers. That there were other very good if not great teams that were perhaps just one or two players away from winning the NBA Finals as well. Like the Rockets, Hawks and Pistons, and even the Dallas Mavericks. That the future of the NBA was going to very good if not great.

CBS Sports: NFL 1986-Week 14-New York Giants @ Washington Redskins

Source:CBS Sports-  The Giants and Redskins: Week 14 1986 at RFK Stadium.

Source:Real Life Journal

“In a battle of two 11-2 teams the Giants beat the Skins 24-14 on their way to winning the NFC East and ultimately Super Bowl XXI.”

From Ken Gelman 

One of the classic games in the great Giants-Redskins rivalry with the Giants winning at RFK 24-14. Breaking a trend in the rivalry where both teams would win at home every year. As well as the Giants sweeping the series. But the 1986 Giants were special and accomplished things they hadn’t accomplished in while like winning an NFL Championship for the first time since 1956. As well as sweeping the Redskins and beating the Redskins in Washington. And beating the Redskins in the NFC Final in a 17-0 shutout.

But this post is really about the Pat Summerall intro. He was the master at that and is no secret why he was the number one play-by-play NFL announcer at CBS Sports for what twenty-years. Because of his voice, his delivery and his simple great knowledge of not just the NFL, because he played himself, but because of his knowledge of the New York Giants, Redskins and NFC East more broadly, because he and John Madden did so many NFC East games together. Because they were the number one NFC broadcast team at CBS Sports and the NFC East was a great division back then.

NBA-TV: NBA 1975- NBA-Finals-San Francisco Warriors vs Washington Wizards: Feature

Source:NBA-TV- perhaps game 1 of the 1975 NBA Finals.

Source:Real Life Journal

“The GoldenState Warriors face the Washington Bullets in the 74 – 75 NBA Finals. Warriors win in a 4 game sweep”

From Knag 91

The 1975 NBA Finals and perhaps the 1979 NBA Finals are two Finals the Bullets would love have to have back. Because they both cost them opportunities to be the NBA team of the 1970s. And being able to win three NBA Finals in that decade, instead of just the lone championship in 1978. When they lost to the Milwaukee Bucks in the 1971 Finals, I believe at least they lost to a better team. But in 75 and 79, they were the clear favorites going in and could’ve won both Finals in five games.

The 1975 San Francisco Warriors (as I called them) were a very good team. Great player in Rick Barry, sort of like the Larry Bird of the 1970s with his ability to shoot, pass and handle the ball at the small forward position. A great head coach in Al Attles and a very good supporting case around Barry. But the Bullets had the better team and better players, but were simply beat in this series.