A&E Biography: Faye Funaway

Source:A&E Biography with a program about Hollywood Goddess Faye Dunaway.

Source:The Daily Review

I guess when I think of great dramatic comedic actress’s and what I mean by that is actress’s who combine both dramatic and comedic abilities in the same role, not actress’s who are great at both comedy and drama, but women who do both in the same roles, I think of Faye Dunaway, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall and a few others. But Faye is towards the top of this list if not at the top. Because she has this great ability at putting things exactly as they are with real feeling, but doing it in a great comedic and humorous way as well. Like the line she had in Network when she tells the Max Schumacher character (played by William Holden) that, “you aren’t the worst lay I’ve ever had. God knows I’ve had worst.”

Faye Dunaway is this tall gorgeous, baby-faced adorable actress, with this great dramatic and comedic abilities. Who seems to specialize at playing very cute gorgeous women who are very sharp and have a lot of energy and who are also smart asses. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that if Faye were a career soap opera actress she would be the best ever at that. She would have won have multiple awards for that every year and been on the top soap if not top show on TV every year. Best Actress should almost be her title. She’s really the best at whatever she does at least from her era. Lets call it the Baby Boom. Network is one of my favorite movies and other than maybe Peter Finch she was the best actor/actress in that movie. And Network is the perfect example of what dramatic comedy is. A movie that takes on serious subjects, but does it in a humorous way.

In many ways I see Faye Dunaway as a satirist. Someone who uses both drama and comedy to talk about serious subjects and does it in a very entertaining and sexy way. Chinatown with Jack Nicholson is another example of this where detective movies tend to be funny and Jack Nicholson is pretty funny in really anything he does so putting together with Faye Dunaway is an all-star combination. Network is Fay’s best and most famous part and where she was really the best on a great all-star cast with a great production team. But she’s had a lot of other great roles that’s shown all of her great abilities. Like Chinatown, The Towering Inferno. She’s a Hall of Fame actress who could’ve gone into the Hall of Fame thirty-years ago and I hope she’s around forever.

Reason Magazine: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Vice President Joe Biden Bashes Abortion, Defends Religious Freedom

Source:Reason Magazine- Vice President Joe Biden & Father Matt MaloneSource.

Source:The New Democrat

I have a problem with Vice President Biden’s I guess latest position on abortion saying that abortion is not only always wrong, but then life starts at conception. Meaning when the mother of the fetus is actually pregnant. If he was anti-choice on abortion all together, I wouldn’t have a problem with this position. But I think someone who says life starts at conception, but is still in favor of choice when it comes to abortion, is essentially saying that women have a right to murder their babies. If you believe that life starts at conception then how could also you believe in choice when it comes to abortion and not be in favor of murder at least on a limited basis. I can understand why an Irish-Catholic like Joe Biden would want to appeal to Democrats if he runs for president. But this is not how you do it.

Joe Biden’s entire 36 year career in the U.S. Senate which is also his whole Congressional career he was pro-choice on abortion. By the way his first year in the Senate 1973 is when Roe V. Wade was also decided that gave American women the right to decide for themselves whether to complete their pregnancies, or end them on their own. Then Senator Biden always argued that reproductive rights and the right to choose on abortion was always been between the women and the doctor. That this was not up to government to interfere in these most personal of decisions. Which is my position as well just as long as women are paying for this choice and not putting the cost of these decisions on the backs of taxpayers . But I don’t take that position, because I believe abortion is murder and that I believe women, or men have that right.

It seems to me at the very least that if you’re position on abortion is that you’re pro-choice, then you take that position because you don’t believe that life starts at conception. Whether you’re Catholic, or come from any other faith, or don’t practice religion at all. That life starts at the very least towards the end of pregnancies which is why you would be against what is called partial-birth abortion. Or life starts at birth. So of you take that position you’re not saying that women have the right to murder their babies, because you believe a fetus doesn’t become a baby until it’s actually born. But if you say, “of course life starts at conception, but so what this is the women’s decision and if she wants to murder her baby by aborting it, that’s her choice.” A position like that would be hard to defend.

NFL Films: NY Giants Chronicles- The 1960s & 1970s

Source:Jim Files- a look at the 1970 New York Giants.

Source:The Daily Review

"1970 New York Giants Highlight Video" 

From Jim Files 

"New York Giants Qb Y.a. Tittle... Sports Illustrated Cover art print by Sports Illustrated. Our art prints are produced on acid-free papers using archival inks to guarantee that they last a lifetime without fading or loss of color. All art prints include a 1" white border around the image to allow for future framing and matting, if desired." 

Source:Fine Art America- New York Giants QB Y.A. Tittle.

From Fine Art America

I believe Bob Papa had the best line when he said that the New York Giants by 1964 were in transition. The great teams and success that they had in the 1950s and early 1960s was gone by 1964. 

Giants running back Alex Webster (not Barney Rubble) had a great line as well when he said in 64 that the Giants had a bunch of players who played a year too long. They were an aging team that was carrying a lot of aging veterans who were past their primes and should’ve retired after the 62 or 63 seasons and simply no longer had it in 64 and the Giants collapsed and finished in last place in 64. And guys like Y.A. Tittle, Frank Gifford and Alex Webster, all retire after the 64 season. Leaving the Giants being forced to start rebuilding in 65.

To give you an idea of how good the Giants were from 1964-80: they never made the playoffs and had I believe had two winning seasons. The worst team in the NFC East in the 1970s. Again, one winning season and year after year competing with their arch-rival the Philadelphia Eagles for last place in the NFC East. Two of the biggest markets and cities in the country and two of the most storied franchises in the NFL and yet they were consistently competing for last place in the NFC East. 

I think the problem with the Giants of this era was that they fired Allie Sherman too soon after the 68 season and then not finding a good head coach for them until Ray Perkins in 1979. They had several different head coaches during this period that all had one thing in common: losing season after losing season.

As great as Wellington Mara was for the New York Giants franchise he made a lot of mistakes in the 1960s and 70s. Not having the right general manager and head coach in the 1970s and poor drafting set this franchise way back. 

Also, not finding a replacement for Yankee Stadium which was really a baseball park that the Giants shared. (With the guess who) All of these things that contributed to the Giants essentially being asleep as a franchise especially in the 1970s. Even the Chicago Bears who were pretty bad in this period as well-managed a couple of winning seasons and made the playoffs in the 1970s. 

The Giants did make a few good draft picks in the mid and late 1970s like Harry Carson, George Martin and Phil Simms that set them up well for the 1980s. But by in-large the 1970s was a bad decade for the New York Giants.

David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview (1988)

Source: David Seaton- U.S. Representative Ron Paul R, Texas.

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.
David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview 1988 A Must See!

Mises Daily: William L. Anderson: 'Progressive-Era Economics & The Legacy of Jim Crow'

Source:Mises Daily- Jim Crow Economics?

SourceThe New Democrat 

"Mainstream historians and economists tend to see the period from about 1900 to 1920 as a glorious time for the Progressive agenda. In 1913 alone, the government headed by Progressive Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve System, direct election of US Senators via voters (and not state legislators), and the federal income tax. The rise of regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission further directed the US economy away from “destructive” laissez-faire and toward a more “rational” model. Likewise, the US government at this time aggressively pursued anti-trust policies that sought to break up or prevent the creation of private monopolies, supposedly protecting the very heart of the American free enterprise system: competition." 

From the Mises Institute 

"In which John Green teaches you about the Progressive Era in the United States. In the late 19th and early 20th century in America, there was a sense that things could be improved upon. A sense that reforms should be enacted. A sense that progress should be made. As a result, we got the Progressive Era, which has very little to do with automobile insurance, but a little to do with automobiles. All this overlapped with the Gilded Age, and is a little confusing, but here we have it. Basically, people were trying to solve some of the social problems that came with the benefits of industrial capitalism. To oversimplify, there was a competition between the corporations' desire to keep wages low and workers' desire to have a decent life. Improving food safety, reducing child labor, and unions were all on the agenda in the Progressive Era. While progress was being made, and people were becoming more free, these gains were not equally distributed. Jim Crow laws were put in place in the south, and immigrant rights were restricted as well. So once again on Crash Course, things aren't so simple." 

Source:Crash Course- on The Progressive Era.

From Crash Course

Libertarians like to point back to pre-1920s or the Nineteenth Century as the golden era for the American economy and perhaps the country as a whole. An era where the races in America were largely segregated by force. Where if you came from a wealthy Caucasian family, especially an Anglo-Saxon family chances were you would do pretty well in this country especially if you were male. But if you were a woman, you weren’t even allowed to vote yet. But if you didn’t have this economic, racial and ethnic background and you were something other than Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, good luck to you. There were even Europeans back then who were considered Un-American because they weren’t Protestant: the Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Spanish and others and were discriminated against based on their ethnicity and religion.

And yet Libertarians point back to this era as the golden age for the American economy. Why, because it was before the regulatory state for the most part. Before we had anti-monopoly laws and child labor laws and other laws protecting workers from abusive employers. 

The New Deal, doesn’t come around to 1934, or so. During the Great Depression, not right before it. America hasn’t had that one golden economic age where the economy has worked for all the country. The 1990s and perhaps 1980s, 1960s and 1950s, where you saw people moving from poorer rural areas into the cities and found good jobs and were able to make a good life for themselves are really the closest thing we’ve had to that golden age for our American economy.

Pre-Progressive Era, might be the golden age for let's say economic Libertarians. Because they didn’t have an income tax, payroll taxes, child labor laws and other worker laws to protect workers while they are at work. That is if you were Caucasian, especially Anglo-Saxon, but how about the rest of the country especially if you were an African-American living in the South, or the North. How great was life for you in America in the early 1900s just 40-50 years after slavery was ended in this country. You probably weren’t very happy and doing very well. Because you were denied quality education, housing and employment simply because of your race and color. 

I’m not going to ask the question do Libertarians want to go back to that time, because I believe I know the answer. But how about the rest of you country especially if you’re not an Anglo-Saxon Caucasian Protestant man.

Gil Noble Interviewing Abdullah Abdur-Razzaq: The Last Year of Malcolm X (1997)

Source:The New Democrat- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X.

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.

Reason Magazine: Terry Michael- 'Bernie Sanders: First Libertarian Socialist?'

Source:Reason Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) Libertarian-Socialist?

Source:The New Democrat 

"Ground-breaking research by political science experts (actually me, Googling) reveals that a new breed of American politician has been discovered, the first ever "libertarian socialist." And it has a name: Bernie Sanders.

Oxymoronic, you say? Call me crazy, but the senator from the Peoples' Republic of Vermont is at least two-thirds of the way there on the road to free minds and free markets.

There are three issue frames in politics. Foreign. Social. Economic. Sanders is as non-interventionist as Ron Paul on foreign policy. He is as pro-choice and pro-gay rights as Yahweh on social issues (Yahweh has come a long way in the past several decades). And like most of us libertarians who despise crony capitalism, Bernie eschews the big three rent-seeking lobbies: Big Investment Banks, Big Pharma Drug Dealers, and Big War Profiteers.

Granted, he wants free health care, free day care, free college tuition, and free scoops of Ben and Jerry's. But hey, nobody's perfect." 

From Reason Magazine 

"Rand Paul is not a libertarian and Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

Sanders ("Socialist") vs. Rand Paul ("Libertarian")

featuring Al Franken" 

Source:Gavin Lockard- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

From Gavin Lockard

Bernie Sanders, supports Freedom of Speech and doesn’t defend political correctness and try to censor people who he disagrees with, or who say things that might be offensive for people on the Left. He actually talks to people he severely disagrees with like speaking at Liberty University this week. He doesn’t want government telling people what they can eat and drink. After all he’s represented a major ice cream maker in Vermont in Congress (both in the House and Senate) since 1991. He voted against the 2001 Patriot Act and against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. He’s pro-choice on abortion, sexuality and many other issues. Here’s a Democratic Socialist who generally speaks in favor of the U.S. Constitution and our Federal form of government and defends it.

Vermont is known as a socialist-liberal state. Some people might call that socialist-libertarian, or libertarian-socialist, but what that means is that they are a very liberal on social issues and doesn’t want big government involved in our personal lives at all. Even to try to protect us from ourselves. But they believe in socialism when it comes to human services and social welfare and will pay the taxes to pay for those government services. 

When I say Bernie Sanders is the moderate of the New-Left, this is what I mean. Yes, socialist on economic policy, but wants big government out of personal lives especially a nanny state to try to protect us from ourselves. Unlike the mainstream New-Left in America that doesn’t really put any limits on what they believe government can do for people. Even preventing us from hearing speech we may not like.

With Bernie Sanders, you’re not going to get a soft Neoconservative who thinks America doesn’t do enough to try to police the world. Unlike Hillary Clinton. You also won’t get someone who gets most of their campaign funds from Wall Street. Unlike Hillary Clinton. You’ll get someone whose been the same politician ideologically as they were in 1981 when he became Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. Big government out of our personal lives, but big enough to see that everyone has a shot at a decent life. And to see that no one has to go without the basics in life. Like education, health care, health insurance, housing. (To use as examples) 

But Bernie is not a Marxist who wants government to try to run the economy. You get someone who even though they are a Democratic Socialist has people on the Far-Left and Far-Right who disagrees with him on a regular basis.

Sargon of Akkad: 'Illiberal Progressives': Not Very Liberal or Progressive

Source:Sargon of Akkad-  I guess this about so-called illiberal Progressives.

Source:The New Democrat

"The modern progressive movement is, in most ways, directly opposed to the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment.

Despite this, progressives are happy to allow people to call them liberals because of the fine reputation of liberalism. Cultural Libertarians: Breitbart."

From Sargon of Akkad

I said before and Black Lives Matter is a perfect example of this that Bernie Sanders is the moderate of the New-Left. Again Bernie Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist who lives up to all the principles of democratic socialism including even Freedom of Speech.

What were these Black Lives Matter protesters doing? Trying to shut up Democratic Socialist Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders from speaking. One thing that Liberals and Democratic Socialists have in common that we don’t have in common with Marxists and other collectivists both Far-Left and Far-Right is that we believe in free speech. If you don’t believe in free speech, you’re not a Liberal. It would be like someone who says they’re conservative even though they are anti-capitalist and Freedom of Religion.

I would also argue that today’s so-called Progressives who are really the children of the 1960s New-Left, as well as alive back then and part of that movement are not very progressive. You need to believe in progress and advancing progress and policies that accomplish progressive goals in order to be a Progressive.

When you try to limit free speech in America and even limit the free speech of people who are already on your side like a Bernie Sanders whose a Democratic Socialist, you’re not creating progress there. What you’re doing is regressing and choosing to do so.

You’re saying free speech is bad, because it means that you might hear things that you do don’t want to listen to. Free speech is exactly that. It means that everyone gets to express themselves and speak freely. But that we are part of a community and it might mean hearing things we don’t like.

CBS News: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace: The King of Late Night Johnny Carson (1979)

SourceCBS News 60 Minutes, talking to Johnny Carson, in 1979.

Source:The Daily Review

The perfect interviewer Mike Wallace interviewing the perfect late show talk show host Johnny Carson in 1979. I can’t think of a better combination here other than maybe Mike Wallace interviewing Cary Grant, or someone like that. I believe Johnny answered the Mike Wallace question of why don’t you take on serious topics. By saying that is not what he does. He’s a comedian and his job was to entertain people and make them laugh. He wasn’t Phil Donahue on the air hosting national town hall everyday. His job was literally make fun of what is going on in the world and have fun with it. He did do political satire and would make fun of what is going on in the news and public officials when they screw up. But again doing it in a humorous way.

Carson, was a comedian first and talk show host second. And what he would do with his talk format would be to question other comedians and entertainers, because again his job was to entertain people. Not to inform then on what is going on in the Middle East, or why stocks on Wall Street are down. And he would even interview politicians and other public officials, but generally those people would have good if not great sense of humor’s as well. People like Ron Reagan, Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and they would make fun of politics together and perhaps of each other. I believe Carson was interested in politics and current affairs a lot which is why he did read and watch a lot of news, but he wasn’t going to use his show simply cover the issues of the day. But to make fun of what is going on in the world.

Federal Expression: 'Fearless American Dan Smoot'

Source:Abbeville Institute- 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.

NFL Network: America's Game- The 1985 Chicago Bears

Source:NFL Network- welcome to The Windy City.

Source:The Daily Review

When I look at the 1985 Chicago Bears, I see how the 1980s Bears should have been. Dominant defense, strong offensive line with a great running game that can also pass block, but with a healthy Jim McMahon a passing game as well. Pre-1985 or so all you needed was a strong run defense and a team that could score about twenty points a game or less to beat the Bears. They had Walter Payton, Roman Harper and Matt Suhey running the ball and that was basically it for their offense. Especially Payton and if they had a big game running the ball then maybe Jeff Fuller or whoever the quarterback was could hit a few passes to James Scott, or Willy Gault and Payton in the passing game.

The 85 Bears with a healthy McMahon, now had an offense to go with perhaps the best defense that the NFL has ever seen for one season in the 85 Chicago Bears and their 46 Defense. Jimmy Mc, was the difference between the Bears being a good, or very good team and a great dominant team that was perhaps better than any NFL team we’ve ever seen at least in the 1980s. But for that one season the Bears were about as good, or better than any NFL team that the NFL has ever seen. Because they had all of their parts both on defense and on offense. Mike Ditka, running the offense and Buddy Ryan running the defense. With the offense only having to come up with 14-17 points, but that could give you 25-30, even though they didn’t have to do that very often if ever.

The reason why the 1980s Bears only won one Super Bowl and the Bears haven’t won another one since is because they either couldn’t protect Jim McMahon, or he couldn’t protect himself. Or a combination of both, plus he only weighed about 190 pounds. And when you’re 6’1 and you’re playing QB in the NFL and play on Astroturf, you probably need to weigh 200 or more so you’re strong enough to take a beating every week. By when McMahon was healthy and on he was about as good as any QB in the NFL at least in 85. He was athletic and quick and had a strong accurate throwing arm. And he had a great offensive line and running game and you got to see how great the Bears back then could be in 85.

The reason why we can’t talk about the 1980s Bears like we can talk about the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers, or the 1980s San Francisco 49ers, or even the 1980s Washington Redskins that played in three Super Bowls and won two of them, is because the Bears only did it for one season. And to be that team and a dynasty you must have more than one great season. You have to win multiple Super Bowls in the same decade and have at least one great Super Bowl champion. But in 1985 for one season we got to see how great and NFL team can be on both sides of the ball for 19 games. The 18-1 Chicago Bears that only lost to the Miami Dolphins who were the last NFL franchise to go undefeated in the NFL. And the 85 Bears were real special and still are.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- U.S. Senator Rand Paul- On Cutting Government

Source:Liberty Pen- U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R, Kentucky.

Source:The New Democrat

Just from this clip in this video Senator Rand Paul as President Rand Paul, if that ever happens, would cut about one-hundred-forty-six-billion-dollars a year. Which to anyone who lets says makes sixty-thousand-dollars a year and has maybe ten-thousand in the bank, sure! That sounds like a lot of money and would be a lot of money to that person. But welcome to Washington! Where they now speak in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars and now trillions of dollars. Where the Federal budget alone is four-trillion-dollars a year. The budget deficit is somewhere around four-hundred-billion-dollars, which again normally on planet Earth that would sound like a lot of money. But sometimes Washington, especially Congress looks nothing like planet Earth.

The Department’s of Education, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, whatever you think of them and other than Commerce, I have real issues with each of them, these departments aren’t the reasons for the budget deficit. And eliminating Federal education funding completely and things like public housing, you could argue which actually hurt the economy and add to the deficit. Because that money keeps low-income people in homes and low-income school districts from having to layoff teachers. The famous bank robber Billy The Kid was once asked the brilliant question of why does he rob banks? Where he gave an obvious answer to that and said, because that’s where the money is.

The main reasons for the budget deficit and national debt right now, have to do with the Great Recession, which we never completely recovered from, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that both went on the national debt card and our looming retirement crisis thanks to the Baby Boomers when it comes to Social Security and Medicare and you add our bloated tax code and the overall military budget as well. I use the Billy The Kid line because what I just laid out is where the money is when it comes to our national deficit and debt. You don’t have a serious budget deficit plan without addressing those areas of the Federal budget. As well as having an economic plan that produces stronger economic growth with more people working with good jobs.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: Special Report: Donald Trump-Then and Now

Source:Liberty Pen- The one & Thank God The only Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

The so-called success and popularity of Donald Trump and no one knows especially The Donald how long it will last and only time will tell and back to Bob and the whole bit, has to do with dumb voters in America who are simply looking for someone to represent them. And at the very least take them back to a time where the country looked and acted like them. The Donald, who is more qualified to run for uses car salesman in chief, or narcissist in chief than Commander-in-Chief, sees a huge financial opportunity here to create his new realty show. Who Wants Donald Trump For President? Which should also be his campaign theme by the way. Because it would actually be accurate.

You have a group of Middle-America, or Silent Majority voters, old dumb Anglo-Saxon Southern/Midwestern Protestant voters to be more accurate, who are looking for someone who talks like they do. Who doesn’t speak in terms of diversity and that diversity is one of our greatest strengths and immigration is what built America and we need make America great again, as if we’re not currently great and go down the line. The reason why a Donald Trump can replace a Mitt Romney as Flip Flopper in-chief, is because he’s speaking to voters who don’t bother to look at the records and careers of politicians. Because that would require reading and perhaps having a computer. What they do instead is go off the latest soundbites and speeches.

Anyone who follows and takes American politics seriously, knows that Donald Trump is not only not a politician, because he’s never held office, but if he was a politician he wouldn’t get away with perhaps half of the flip-flops he’s had in his career. If The Donald could only speak to Americans who take politics seriously like the real activists on both sides who bother to looks at candidates records and see if what they’re saying now matches up with what they said before. The Donald would have to run a completely different campaign. And he also couldn’t run as a Republican because of his long support for Planned Parenthood, the Clinton’s, saying Democrats do a better job of managing the economy and again go down the line.

How else can you explain someone like Donald Trump, who has been multiple choice on most of the major issues in the country, getting away with being about hundred-percent pro-choice on abortion and even in favor of Planned Parenthood, who once supported the flat tax and called Bill Clinton a good if not great president and said that single-payer is the way America should go when it comes to health care reform and these are just a few examples, getting away with changing every single position that he’s had on these issues. Because the voters he speaks to don’t bother to look at the records and past policies of their candidates. Because that would require effort and work and perhaps intelligence as well. And besides they are just soundbite voters who breathe a lot of hot air. Even in Minnesota in January.

Lifetime: Intimate Portrait- Stefanie Powers

Source:Groovy Nikki- The Big Apple New York City.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Intimate Portrait Stefanie Powers." From a 2002 documentary about Hollywood Goddess Stefanie Power. From Lifetime. The video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

“The career of Stefanie Powers is one of so many stage, screen, and television credits that her name alone recalls memories as varied as her roles—on screen and off. From movie roles including John Wayne’s daughter in McLintock! and Lana Turner’s rival in Love Has Many Faces, to being terrorized by Tallulah Bankhead in Die, Die My Darling and befriending a Volkswagen in Herbie Rides Again, she stepped onto the television screen as the sexy secret agent April Dancer in The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. and the jet-setting, crime-solving wife of Robert Wagner in Hart to Hart. She is also an award-winning stage actress, fitness advocate, and an internationally recognized animal conservationist… 

Source:Barnes & Noble- Stefanie Powers's book.

From Barnes & Noble

When I think of Stefanie Powers, I think of her eyes and her little baby nose and big sweet cheeks and sweet voice to match. She is literally one of the sweetest and prettiest things that has ever come out of Hollywood. And then you look at her resume and you're looking at The Girl From Uncle, Love Has Many Faces, where she works with Lana Turner, Ruth Roman, Cliff Robertson, Hugh O'Brien and many others and you know she's good enough to work with the best. Which is sort of the way you judge athletes in pro team sports. Are they good enough to play with and play against the best, or not. Stefanie has always been great enough to do both.

She also did Experiment in Terror, which is one of the best crime dramas/horror movies you'll ever see. From 1962, where she worked with Lee Remick and Glen Ford. She's about 18-19 at that point and playing a high school student and looked even younger than that.  But Hart to Hart, is perhaps not Stefanie's best role that she's ever had. I believe her movies are better and Hart to Hart is somewhat cheesy in comparison, but Jennifer Hart is the role that made Stefanie a huge star. She and Robert Wagner, did a great job with some pretty cheesy writing and a show that isn't very credible. When you're talking about a president of a corporation that essentially acts as a private detective even though his business was not detective work.

Stefanie and RJ, as they are called, made Hart to Hart from how they related with each other on the show with their chemistry and that they share a very similar sense of humor and both have great timing. Stefanie Powers, is an actress who has always had a lot to work with both personally and professionally and who has made the best of those roles from what she's brought to them. From her physical appearance, her great voice and her delivery. And is someone who has combined very good acting ability and wit with an excellent physical appearance that has left many men remembering her and always wanting to see more from her. I'm one of her biggest fans and I hope she works forever just like Raquel Welch.

The Book Archive: Edwin Black: Why Iraq Failed

Source:The Book Archive- Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.

Source:The New Democrat

This event was done in 2004 and even though it was clear by then that the original reason of why America invaded Iraq in 2003 which was over weapons of mass destruction and preventing the Saddam Hussein Regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, was not there and never justified, because Saddam no longer had WMD at that point, it wasn't clear yet that this war was a failure. In 2004, you could argue that Iraq failed, because the world's superpower the United States invaded them and knocked out their government and removed their dictator. And you could pretty much end it there and then debate more than ten years later if Saddam would still be in power today without the American invasion.

I'm not sure Iraq was ever originally set up to be a successful independent country. It was set up by the United Kingdom as a British colony. And the way the British set it up was to create a state where you had to large ethnic groups. Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Kurds and two major Islamic factions. The Sunnis and the Shias. With a bunch of other ethnic minorities like the Turkmen's and Assyrians. Iraq, similar to Iran, were set up to become reliable sources for oil and gas for Europe especially the United Kingdom. Unlike the State of Israel that was put together so the Jews could have their own country and not have to worry about being murdered by their own government in another country.

But even pre-2003 Iraq War, you could argue that Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq. Here he had a fairly large country in land, but with only twenty-five-million people or so and yet most of them are educated, that is not only energy independent, but is one of the largest oil and has producers in the world. And yet he created a third-world country. Because he wasn't interested in developing his country. But holding onto and expanding his dictatorship. And invading countries he thought he could control and steal their energy. Iran and Kuwait, come to mind real fast. So Iraq failed, because it wasn't set up to succeed by the British and Saddam, destroys his country by the way he mismanaged the economy started wars that shouldn't have been fought.

Liberty Me: 'Let's Talk- Left-Libertarianism: Sheldon Richman & Walter Block With Lucy Steigerwald'

Source:Liberty Me- debating left-libertarianism.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What is libertarianism? Why is there a constant dialogue about left versus right? Are these distinctions useful?

Sheldon Richman and Walter Block explore these ideas.

Pour a glass of wine with Lucy as she navigates the intricacies with these two giants.

Sheldon and Walter continue the debate here:Liberty Me." 

From Liberty Me

I believe I covered this last week, but a so-called Left-Libertarian is a Social Liberal. Individual freedom, plus social justice. And they have our own definition of social justice and it’s not about collective results and that everyone should have the same. It just means that you have a social insurance system for people who are truly in need. Not to take care of everyone indefinitely, but to help people who are in need get themselves on their own feet. Rand Paul, Gary Johnson and others, are Left-Libertarians. Right-wing compared with Progressives and Socialists, but left-wing compared with classical Libertarians and Conservatives like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell.

Non-aggression individual freedom. The ability for people to be free to live their own lives. Not to do whatever the hell they want and live in anarchy. But to manage their own personal and economic affairs, as long as they’re not hurting any innocent person. The right to self-defense, but not the right to attack any innocent person. So a Left-Libertarian believes in a limited government and that governmental power should be limited to only what government should be doing that the individual can’t do for themselves. And should be decentralized as much as possible. That you don’t have a big centralized central government, without much responsibility for anyone else.

So to me anyway, a Left-Libertarian is a Conservative. At least in the sense of how conservatism was defined up until the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives came onto the scene in the 1970s. That government should be limited and keep taxes down and with a large private sector. But an insurance system for people who truly need it. Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater himself, fifty-years later and perhaps even back then would be a Left-Libertarian. To the right of FDR Progressives, but to the Left of Ron Reagan and even Ron Paul. Reagan, on social issues and Paul on economic policy and foreign policy.