The Atlantic: Alan Taylor: The Lights Go Out on Candlestick Park

Source:The Atlantic.

Source:The New Democrat

I have mixed feelings about Candlestick Park. Even as someone who has actually never been there. But heard a lot of things about the park both good and bad from people who are much familiar with it than me. As well as seeing a lot of NFL and MLB games played there on TV.

The good aspects about it I think are fairly clear. If you look at the original design of the park from 1960, when the San Francisco Giants moved in for baseball, it is a pretty attractive ballpark and it was baseball only, as far as sports. I'm thinking had the 49ers not have moved in there as well and they kept up with the maintenance of the park, perhaps put up a wall beyond the bleachers in the outfield to keep the wind out played more day games, this would've been a beautiful classic ballpark, that perhaps is still in business today like Dodger Stadium.

The 49ers moving into this park and expanding the capacity to over seventy-thousand seats, including 63-64 thousand for baseball, which is way too big because of all the nosebleed seats in the upper deck, as well as all of those cold even in the summer San Francisco night games, really ruined what once was a beautiful ballpark. But despite all the flaws of this stadium, this was one of the better stadiums both in the MLB and NFL as far as fan atmosphere and attendance. This was a very loud outdoor stadium for both football and baseball and the fans seemed to like it. At least when their teams were good. This was a great home field advantage for the 49ers. Who've had most of their success at Candlestick. With all of those Super Bowl championships and big regular season and playoff games there.

I'm thinking had, the 49ers just of stayed at Kezar Stadium, which was beautiful and football only. Sort of like the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, but about half the size, but renovated it made it up to date for the 1970s with skyboxes and everything else and Candlestick never became a multipurpose stadium, the Giants might still be at Candlestick and the 49ers might still be at Kezar today. Both clubs playing in two of the best looking stadiums in both MLB and the NFL. But no, one of the key terms of the 1970s is cookie cutter. Multipurpose artificial stadiums was the trend in the 1970s. And San Francisco went the same route. Even though all they had to do was renovate Kezar and keep up on the maintenance of both Kezar and Candlestick. Instead of making Candlestick look like a big hole, or dump that got made fun of.

Thomas Sowell: Who Lost Iraq?

Source:Creators-

Source:The New Democrat

Thomas Sowell, said in his piece that China wasn’t America’s to lose in the 1940s, but then suggested President Barack Obama lost Iraq. As if Iraq was America’s to lose. Last time I checked, America doesn’t own Iraq. We no longer occupy Iraq. This might be the first and last time that I’ll ever quote Vladimir Putin on anything, at least something that I agree with him on. But he was asked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And he said, “a country that can’t defend itself, is not a country.” What I would add to that is a country that can’t, or won’t defend itself and Iraq certainly qualifies as that, is just a piece a land where people live.

During President Bush’s administration, it took them four years just to get Iraq stabilized. Because they didn’t have enough troops to occupy the country in the first place. And under the Bush/Cheney policy, America would stay in Iraq until there are no longer any dangers and security challenges in Iraq. They would say that we would stay there until Iraq can defend and govern themselves. Which tells Iraq that they don’t need to defend and govern themselves, because America will always do that for them and our taxpayers will always pay for the government and defense of their country.

President Obama, figured this out pretty quickly when he came to office in 2009. That for Iraq to ever become stabilize and be a place that can govern and defend itself, they need to know that America won’t be there to that for them indefinitely. That they need a government and security forces than can take care of and defend the country themselves. That the Obama Administration will work with and help the Iraqi Government as long as the Iraqi Government and the Iraq people are doing what they can for themselves. Under the Maliki Government in Iraq, what they did was centralize more power with the Central Government, especially with Prime Minister Al-Maliki and became corrupt. And lost the trust of the Iraq people and lost their power as a result.

Iraq, post-War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein, has had their own government for ten years now, going back to 2005. We’ve been training their defense forces for what twelve years now. And that’s because the Bush Administration kicked out the old Iraqi military and they started from scratch. In the midst of a civil war in Iraq. A country that can’t and won’t defend itself, is not a country. Iraq was never America’s to lose, because we never owned it. We went in their by ourselves for the most part and have paid for most of the costs of our being there and occupation. Along with millions of Iraqi’s who have died. If anyone lost Iraq, it was Iraq themselves.

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: Why Now’s The Time To Step Up & Fight Against The Drug War

SourceStop The Drug War-

Source:The New Democrat

Congress, the last two weeks has debated the defense authorization bill. The House, is close to passing their bill and the Senate is debating their bill this week and voting on amendments. Both chambers and parties in Congress would also like to end sequestration, in the defense budget and broader Federal budget. I mention these things, because there are better ways to not only pay for our national priorities, while at the same time cutting our deficit and national debt. Instead of fighting bogus so-called wars like the War on Drugs, use that money to, gee, I don’t know, fight terrorists. You know, actual threats to the country and end the War on Drugs.

Stop sending Americans to prison for simply possessing or using illegal narcotics. Legalize and regulate marijuana as if it were alcohol, since pot possesses similar side-effects and challenges to the country. Not legalize cocaine, heroin and meth. I’m not a Libertarian, which might seem surprising, to anyone familiar with my blogging. But decriminalize it in the sense that we stop sending people to prison for using, or possessing it. Instead fine them for possession based on how much they have on them. And send addicts and users to halfway houses and drug rehab, at their expense.

The War on Drugs, is a tragic failure, that never had to happen. Its costs us trillions of dollars that otherwise could’ve been spent on infrastructure, real law enforcement issues, strengthening the defenses of the country and I could go on. And while the economy is still fairly weak, with a deficit and high national debt and millions of Americans still unemployed, we need to be much smarter in how we spend our national resources. And invest in things that work and free up those resources by stop investing in things that don’t work. Like the failed War on Drugs.

The American Thinker: Paul Kengor: 'From Communists to Progressives: The Left’s Takedown of Family and Marriage'

Source:Spero News- Paul Kengor's book, about The Left in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"As the Supreme Court considers rendering unto itself the right to redefine marriage -- that is, to arrogate to itself something heretofore reserved to the laws of nature and nature’s God -- it’s a good time to have something that liberals always insist we have: a conversation. And given liberals’ constant calls for “tolerance” and “diversity,” they ought to be willing to sit back and join us in a civil, healthy dialogue." 

From American Thinker

"Professor Paul Kengor, author of the sensational book, Dupes, speaks on how communists have manipulated progressives and why Barack Obama's relationship with Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis is so important. Kengor credits America's Survival, Inc. for telling the truth about Obama's communist mentor and obtaining Davis's 600-page FBI file."

From USA Survival

Source:USA Survival- Paul Kengor, at the National Press Club in Washington.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law even, does it say the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason why states started passing same-sex marriage bans in the last ten years or so, as some other states legalized same-sex marriage, because they didn’t have a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Until the 1960s, women were supposed to stay at home and not work outside of the house and raise her kids. While the husband/father worked and paid the bills. That was how parenthood was looked at and unofficially defined. Man works and pays the bills. Woman stays home and raises the family. That was the cultural definitions of the roles for parents in America, up until the mid or late 1960s. 

But nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in Federal law did it say that was how it was supposed to be by law. Back then, men assumed they would be working and getting married and having kids with that woman. And working to pay the bills so their kids could have a better life. As their wife stayed home and raised their kids.

My point is, that just because something has been done for a very long time and has become the societal norm, doesn’t mean that is how it should always be. And that people from different generation’s and era’s can adapt to meet the challenges of their era’s and live accordingly. This is just the main difference between a Liberal such as myself and a Religious-Conservative. 

The Liberal believes the individual should be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. The Religious-Conservative, or the Traditional Values Conservative, believes: “This is how things are done and this is how they’ve always been done. And when you move away from that, you’re the morality and character of the country.”

It’s just until the last thirty-years or so that gays male and female felt the freedom to be who they are in public and private. And they’ve always only represented at best 5-10% of the American population and back then probably less than that, because so many gays lived in the closet and weren’t counted as a result. So the idea of same-sex marriage for gays was simply not on the map. Especially since the idea of homosexuality seem weird and even immoral to so many Americans. 

But as a country moves along and is exposed to people other than themselves and gets to learn about other people than themselves, they become more tolerant. And learn that people of other backgrounds are people just like them. In the sense that they want and believe in similar things, but perhaps look, talk and act differently. But aren’t good, or bad simply because of who they are.

America, has become that true liberal democracy for all Americans. Where we all now feel and have the freedom to be ourselves. And not looked down upon, or punished by law simply because of who we are. So now homosexuality is not only considered not that big of a deal in the sense of that person is not good or bad, simply because they are gay. And if they’re not hurting anyone, so what when it comes to who they’re attracted to and how they live their lives. Which is now has become sort of the consensus attitude about gays in America. “And if they want to get married, by all means. Their marriage doesn’t affect my marriage.” Which has become the majority position when it comes to same-sex marriage in America.

Washington Free Beacon: Matthew Continetti: 'Bernie Sanders Fossil Socialism'

Source:Washington Free Beacon- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

In an era where the Democratic Party and New-Left have been about class and identity politics and protecting this group, or that group, or members of groups from any possible critique in the name of political correctness, you have a self-described Democratic Socialist, unlike most of his supporters, even though he is about as far to the left as anyone can be in America short of being a Marxist, stand up as the voice of moderation. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, who is the voice of reason and moderation. Even though ideologically he is about as Far-Left as most of his supporters.

With Bernie Sanders, you don’t get so-called, “White people, are bigots and bad by in large. And the only ones that are good come from, or were educated in the Northeast, or West Coast” and share their worldview. You don’t get that “American capitalism is a bad thing and it is what is ruining America and making the rest of the world poor.” You don’t get that, “America, is the real terrorist state and terrorists. And we are the real bad guys in the world.” Or that, “individual choice and competition are bad things.” Or that, “middle class Americans are under taxed.” Or that, “private ownership of the media is a bad thing.” And I could go on, but you do hear this, garbage, over at MSNBC and publications as far to the left as their talk lineup.

Matt Continetti, made a good point in his piece about Senator Sanders. Talking about the message that Senator Sanders gave when he announced for president. That government should work for everybody and not just the wealthy. That health care should be a right and not a privilege, that we need a huge investment in infrastructure. That college should available and affordable to all Americans. His message for the most part was positive and reaches a lot of Americans. But then go to MSNBC’s Chris Hays, who might qualify as a Far-Left radical in Sweden, who said that Sanders missed a big opportunity. By not talking quality for transgender people, racial minorities, women and everything else that the Far-Left in America spends most of their focus on now.

On one side you had a U.S. Senator announcing for president who has been in Congress for twenty-four years, representing Vermont in both the House and now Senate. Who knows how Congress works about as anyone who is currently in Congress. Whose chaired a committee and is now the Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee. Whose passed a lot of legislation on his own and has his hands on a lot of the legislation that has passed Congress in the last six years that has been signed by President Obama. Because he knows how the system works. He knows how to govern and work with other people. Which is what moderation is about.

And on the other side, you have someone and his followers and colleagues over at MSNBC and a whole host of Far-Left publications, who have very little if any experience in government, especially Congress, who’ve spent very little time outside of Washington, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, traditional Far-Left areas of the country. Critiquing Senator Sanders for not being the class warrior and race baiter and spending his speech speaking up for groups that they feel deserve special treatment from government.

Bernie Sanders, is a radical by most political standards in America. He’s not dangerous, or a bad person by any definition. The opposites are true, but he’s radical because of what size and role he would give the U.S. Government. And yet, he’s moderate and even centrist compared with his supporters on the Far-Left and the Tea Party on the Right.

ABC News: Terry Moran: Ron Paul Explains a Socialist

Source: ABC News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

Source:The New Democrat

The person who put together this YouTube video, titled it, “Ron Paul Explains a Socialist!” Even though Representative Paul only talked about Socialists in referring to Elizabeth Warren once and for about a minute. To talk about public education infrastructure and labeling Warren as a Socialist, because she supports the collective and all of these public works funded by taxpayers and are government-run. And because of this, I’m really only interested in this interview itself.

Ron Paul, is 2012, running for President in a party that still had a very young and developing conservative libertarian faction in it. And never had a blizzards chance in South Florida of ever winning the Republican nomination for president. Remember, the 2012 presidential race, was between Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney, but we all know why Mitt is called Flip Flopper. And a big government Neoconservative in Rick Santorum. Who spent sixteen years in Congress voting in favor of big government and higher debt and deficits. At least while he was in the Senate and especially after George W. Bush became President in 2001.

2016, can be different for Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul. Who will now have a growing and more mature and bigger conservative libertarian faction behind him. And the opportunity to combine his father’s positions on civil liberties and personal freedom and keeping Federal power in check and even shrinking it. While at the same time develop a national security and foreign policy that doesn’t try to have American policing the world on its own. But doesn’t turn the rest of the world off either. That listens to and works with our allies. A conservative internationalist foreign policy in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Source:ABC News

Tom Woods: James Ostrowski- Progressivism: 'The Idea Destroying America'

Source: Tom Woods- Radio talk show Tom Woods.

Source:The New Democrat

What I’m going to do with this piece, is to layout what progressivism and Progressives are and what they aren’t. I’ll start with what they are not. They aren’t Socialists and Statists, democratic or otherwise. Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and many other Socialists, aren’t Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. They are way to the left of FDR, LBJ and Harry Truman. Progressives, believe in the good of government and even expansionist government.

But Progressives also believe in the limits to what government can do for people. The Socialist, sees government as a director of society. “This is what everyone needs to do well in life. And the primary job of government is to make sure that everyone has what they need to do well in life.” The Progressive, wants everyone to do well in life, sure! But it’s not the job of government to do everything for everybody, or even try to. That people have to have a certain amount of freedom over their own lives. Or the economy will fail, because people will stop being productive.

Progressives, see government more as an insurance system that people can use to empower themselves and live as good as a life as possible. Especially people who need opportunity to do better in life. And that government should be there to do things that we as people can’t do for ourselves or do as well. Infrastructure, national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, regulatory state, to protect the innocent from predators, but not to run the economy. Safety net, for people who are down to help them out, but to also help them get back up.

A lot of today’s so-called Progressives who either have adopted the label, or have had it put on them, really aren’t. Progressives, don’t believe most non-Caucasians in the criminal justice system are innocent. They are not anti-law enforcement, or even anti-military. Under FDR and Truman, Progressives built the national security state. America, became the military and diplomatic power in the world under FDR and Truman. Progressives, are also not conspiracy theory prone. And throw out ideas that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush Administration. To use as an example.

If you really want to learn about progressivism, read up on FDR, Truman, LBJ and read and listen to their speeches. When it came both to economic, foreign and national security policy. Check out Senator Sherrod Brown, perhaps one of the few true of classical Progressives in Congress. Now that the Democratic Party has such a large social democratic wing in Congress, especially in the House. Listen to Senator Brown give a speech on the economy and the importance of the middle class. And things like infrastructure, the importance of manufacturing and small business in America. And you’ll have a pretty good idea of what progressivism really is and how its different from democratic socialism.
Source:Tom Woods