Patrick J. Buchanan: Judge Roy Moore & God’s Law

Attachment-1-1090

Source: Patrick J. Buchanan

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

As much as so-called Conservatives like to claim that they believe in the rule of law, this is where the term so-called comes in when talking about some people who call themselves Conservatives. Former Judge Roy Moore now U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore from Alabama, has said that he doesn’t believe he has to follow laws that violate what he calls God’s Law. To put it simply, if a law is passed or has been on the books for years that violates his fundamentalist religious beliefs like same-sex marriage, the right to privacy which even covers pornography and homosexuality, that Judge Moore believes he has the right under his religious beliefs to violate those laws.

Judge Moore is not a strict-constructionist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution or a Constitutional Conservative. He’s Christian-Theocrat who believes separation of church and state violates the U.S. Constitution, even though its in the Constitution. Which is like one of these radical New-Left ANTIFA Neo-Communist activists saying that Americans don’t have a right to free speech, even though we have this little annoying document that annoys the hell out of the Far-Left and Far-Right that guarantees our free speech rights in America.

No one on the far Christian-Right in America and far Christian-Right is about as Far-Right as you can get in America, Christian-Right is pretty far, but no one on the far Christian-Right who are Christian-Theocrats like Roy More, should ever complain about Middle Eastern and Muslim theocracy. Because Christian-Theocrats the Roy Moore’s, Pat Robertson’s of the world, believe in theocracy as well. Just replace fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity. Replace Arabs and other Middle Easterners, with English-Protestant Americans.

Roy Moore believes homosexuality should be illegal because it violates his religious beliefs. The Far-Left believes that criticism of Islam should be illegal because it offends some Muslims. Or even hate speech from Neo-Nazis who express their hate towards African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities, should be illegal because it offends those groups as well as most good Americans.

The problem that these fringes have again is that little annoying document called the U.S. Constitution that big governmentalist’s on the Christian-Right and radical Socialist-Left, actually most if not all Socialists in America are radical at least in America, but you get the idea, seem to hate.

The Christian-Right doesn’t use the U.S. Constitution as their guiding document and principles. What they do is take advantage of those rights and principles to advance their political agendas. Their interpretation of the Bible is what guides their politics. The Socialist-Left doesn’t believe laws and rights that were given to us over two-hundred years ago should apply to us today. Like the First Amendment, 2nd Amendment, federalism which is part of the 10th Amendment, and that the will of the people at the time should be what guides and govern us. And not a Constitution with all of these amendments that are almost impossible to overturn.

The problem that the Christian-Right has in America and I’m talking about their radicals since a lot of religious fundamentalist have radical religious views, but don’t necessarily believe their religious and cultural values should be forced on the rest of the country or want to see America become a religious theocracy, but the Roy Moore Christian-Theocratic wing of this movement’s problem is that they don’t live in a Christian-Theocracy or any other type of theocracy. They live in a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy.

And just because the Christian-Right believe some laws and rights, and protections, are immoral like the right to privacy and free speech that they find offensive like homosexuality and certain forms of entertainment, or athletes protesting during the national anthem, doesn’t mean they have the right to violate laws just because they believe those laws, rights, and protections violate their interpretation of God’s Law. We have rule of law in America and if you don’t like one law or certain laws, you have the constitutional right to peacefully protest those laws and work to overturn them. As well as the obligation to obey those laws as long as there’re on the books. Which is apparently is something that Roy Moore either didn’t learn in law school, or ignored.

Attachment-1-1091

Source: Michael Jacques

Michael Jacques: CNN New Day- Chris Cuomo Interviewing Roy Moore: Rights Come From God As A Matter of Organic Law

Advertisements
Posted in New Right | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

adc8a269-7ec9-426f-8565-dfd40b72b8af

Source: Movie Documentary- Clark Gable & Yvonne De Carlo

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Yvonne De Carlo at least to me represents the total package when it comes to actresses and entertainers. After you get through her mesmerizing first impression of this beautiful baby-faced adorable Italian brunette, with a great shape, you also see a very intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and great dramatic ability as well. Her most famous role is probably as the mother on Adams Family, but she did so much before that.

Similar to Susan Hayward she’s a women who didn’t come from much with her father not in the picture and with a mother who didn’t seem have much interest in raising her. Susan Hayward’s issues with her parents were that they were poor and had to raise their kids in poverty. With Yvonne’s family it was being born to father who wasn’t around and a mother who wasn’t ready to raise her. And yet by 1943 Yvonne gets her first break as an actress in the movie The Deerslayer starting a great career as a movie as well as TV actress and doing comedy, drama and dramatic comedy.

I believe I would put Yvonne De Carlo on the dramatic/comedy side when it comes to great actors and actresses. Similar to Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, Yvonne De Carlo, and many others. An actress who was very good at both comedy and drama, but even better when those genres were combined, When you would have a great drama with a lot of funny people in it with a lot of lets say sarcasm and flipped lines. And perhaps having funny actors and entertainers who would add their own material and improvise with their own expressions making their characters even more entertaining and funny.

Cary Grant perhaps is the master of dramatic comedy which is why he worked so well with Alfred Hitchcock because he loved dramatic comedy and had a real knack for it. Yvonne was an actress who would have been a great soap actress both on TV and in the movies because she was so good at delivering clever lines, putting people down, but doing it in a funny, honest, entertaining way, that didn’t make her seem mean.

I haven’t seen all of Yvonne De Carlo’s movies and have only gotten more familiar with her career in the last two years or so, but if you are interested in see some good Yvonne movies, I would suggest Death of a Scoundrel where she plays the executive investment of a business investor played George Sanders who really was a scoundrel, but speaking of dramatic comedy you almost have to like at least parts of the Clementi Sabourin character (played by George Sanders) with Yvonne’s character there to keep the man honest and in check. They work really well in the movie and it almost seems like the Yvonne character hates Clementi in the movie and yet is never able to leave him until the end because there’s something about him that she loves and not just the money he pays her.

Yvonne to me represents a actress that again was simply the total package as an actress. Great to look, great to listen to, but she was also a great actress and incredibly entertaining. Someone with style and substance who didn’t have low self-esteem issues because she knew who she was and how good she was. Who didn’t get picked up off the street by some agent or director because she had a great face or figure and then they make a project out of her and try to make her into at an acceptable actress. But someone who came from nothing and did the work to make herself a great actress. Who also happened to be beautiful, adorable, with a beautiful body as well. And represents Old Hollywood when substance was rated higher in style and where you had to be able to do the work and do it well to succeed in Hollywood and where physical looks weren’t simply good enough.

Movie Documentary: A&E Biography- Yvonne De Carlo

Posted in Hollywood Goddess | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel J. Mitchell: Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism

Attachment-1-1025

Source: AIM- Karl Marx & Bernie Sanders

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog. That the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism, in his view. And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society “in their view” where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

Things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around. Transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. Socialism democratic or not, is still a very collectivist ideology. Where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy. Where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we’re romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism,is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war. Where soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America and Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view, to use as one example.

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the Democratic world at least. The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil. Or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism is you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.

Attachment-1-1026

Source: Animate Educate 

 

Animate Educate: Understand Socialism vs Communism

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview

Attachment-1-987

Source: Alan Eichler 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

This might sound harsh but I believe Lana Turner’s life represents a Hollywood character and actress who struggled to get out of character when she was off stage. Actresses and actors when they make it in Hollywood and even become popular to the point where everyone interested in movies and TV knows who they are pick up an image. And believe they have to live up to that image to keep their popularity and stay hot in the business. Even if that image is not positive.

Like with Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield being known as blond bimbos and living up to that on and off camera. Even though in real life where actually pretty intelligent. Or James Dean being known as a teen rebel who is always taking on society and never quite settles down personally and is always fighting.

I believe in Lana Turner’s case she picked up the image as a soap actress character on some show where she has all the money any person could have and could have any man at anytime and ends up with every man and even marrying every man. Has kids with every man she gets involved with. (At least practically) Sounds like at least two female characters on General Hospital and if you’re familiar with the show and are a fan, you probably know who I’m talking about.

Lana Turner was perfect for soap operas because she was perfect for dramatic comedy. Both in her personal life as far as how she lived both intentionally and unintentionally, but she was also a great actress and a very funny woman as well. Which made her perfect for dramatic comedy which is what most good soap operas are like General Hospital, Dallas, Melrose Place, to use as examples, Days of Our Lives. To me at least Lana Turner’s life was the story of a great soap opera. A lot of ups and downs, falls, and dramatic comebacks and she was one of the best soap actresses, as well as characters that we’ve ever had.

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner: 1983 TV Interview

Posted in Baby Lana | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The American Spectator: Opinion- Jeffrey Lord: ‘ANTIFA- The New Ku Klux Klan’

Attachment-1-953

Source: The American Spectator

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Here’s an example of a right-winger in this case Jeffrey Lord (former political analyst at CNN) who doesn’t want his side to and have to take any responsibility for anything negative that most Americans would view as not just negative but horrible. Which in this case would be racist bigotry and racist terrorism like the Ku Klux Klan and the broader Alt-Right. So what they’ll do is to make it seem that these radicals are actually Democrats or even worst in their view, Liberals. Even if you you just took Liberalism 101 you would know that racial intolerance is not a liberal value, but racial intolerance is actually illiberal. Racial tolerance and racial blindness as far as how we judge people are liberal values. And anyone who is a true Conservative, Libertarian, Democratic Socialist, also believes in racial tolerance and racial blindness.

The Ku Klux Klan that was made up of Dixiecrat Democrats. The KKK had members of Congress including senators as well. There were also Dixiecrats in Congress who weren’t affiliated with the KK K officially, but were ideologically in sync with the KKK, short of physically using violence against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. And believed that African-Americans and other non-European-Americans weren’t entitled to the same rights in America as Caucasians. But didn’t believe in using terrorism to stamp out the civil rights movement.

Just because you’re registered as a Democrat doesn’t make you liberal, progressive, or left. Just because you’re registered as a Republican, doesn’t mean you’re conservative, libertarian, or right. It just means you’re registered with that party. Before the late 1970s or so you had right-wing Democrats (Dixiecrats) who represented perhaps as much 1/3 or more of the Democratic Party. Who I would argue at least weren’t Center-Right Conservatives, but Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists, who represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today.

Senator Strom Thurmond who was a U.S. Senator from 1955-2003, one of the longest serving members of Congress in American history, was a Democrat up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and switched to the Democratic Party in 1964. His politics and ideology didn’t switch, just his political party. He was a Dixiecrat until he left the Democratic Party and then I guess you could call him a Dixie Republican when he became part of the GOP. But he was always a Neo-Confederate Nationalist who moderated his views on racial issues, but never supported the civil rights laws and was always a right-winger and even on the Far-Right in American politics.

Senator Jim Eastland, was also a Dixiecrat in his time in Congress in the 1950s, 60s, ands 70s and there were many many Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate Nationalist right-wing Democrats in the Democratic Party during this period, who now represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. As they would say, ‘they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them.”

As far as ANTIFA. They are obviously a radical leftist socialist and perhaps even communist movement in America with no right-wing or Republican leanings. But they don’t seem to be associated with the Democratic Party either. Perhaps in some cases with the Far-Left of the party ideologically. But they are even to the left of Bernie Sanders who represents the modern Martin Luther King People’s Party movement which is a peace loving movement that believes in economic equality through democratic socialist means.

ANTIFA- think by any means necessary to accomplish their objectives which includes violence and even terrorism targeted at Far-Right groups and individuals. Which they say they want to eliminate fascism. But where I could agree with Jeff Lord here is that they want to eliminate right-wing fascism like the KKK and broader Alt-Right. But would keep their form of fascism in place. Which is anyone on the right-wing or anyone who disagrees with them in general, doesn’t have a right to speak in their view. Which is a classic form of fascism which is to eliminate opposing views and speech. Even if that means using violence and terrorism to accomplish those objectives. They’re also anti-capitalist and would like to eliminate capitalism and perhaps even property rights. But right now they seem to be interested and eliminating the Far-Right in America. Again by any means necessary.

Attachment-1-954

Source: The 100 Club

The 100 Club: ANTIFA- The New KKK

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alan Eichler: Hour Magazine- Gary Collins Interviewing Lana Turner: 1982 TV Interview

Attachment-1-923

Source: Alan Eichler- Lana Turner 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

There’s a reason why America has a 50 percent divorce rate. That reason is called Hollywood and broader Los Angeles and the LA area where probably 7-8 out of 10 marriages don’t last. Entertainers in Hollywood tend to look at marriage as business opportunities. “If I marry that person, I’ll be seen with that person which will lead to other opportunities, plus it will help my image.” Especially if they have a reputation as a playboy or playgirl who goes from romance to romance and not seeming very serious about anyone that they get involved with.

The best soap operas in Hollywood don’t come from the studios, at least as far as the shows that come from there. They come from real-life in Hollywood and the personal lives that a lot of actresses and actors live. Some if not a lot or perhaps most great comedians in Hollywood, aren’t actually standup comedians. But very funny people who are supposed to be serious actors and actresses, but who live very amusing personal lives. Who live crazy lives and do crazy things. Burt Reynolds is a great example of that, but only one example. Ava Gardner with her famous outbursts and temper tantrums, would be another great example of that.

Lana Turner’s last big role in Hollywood was on the 1980s hit prime time soap opera Falcon Crest. She was perfect for soaps not just because of her ability as an actress and she’s certainly one of the best ever, but also because she lived the life of a soap star and soap personality. She was married a total of nine times and married to one man (Steve Crane) twice. She was the girlfriend of Italian mobster Johnny Stompanato who her daughter Cheryl shot and killed at their home in self-defense. That would be a pretty good episode of General Hospital right there.

Lana Turner lived the real-life of a soap opera character which is why I at least believe she was perfect for soaps like Falcon Crest and could probably could have done other shows as well. Like Dynasty or Dallas, because she had the great dramatic appeal and comedic wit and timing that you need to be a great soap actress. But also because she lived the life of a great soap character. Lana Turner sort of lived the life of Jayne Mansfield, but lived well into seventies and manage to get her wildness and drinking under control to allow for her to live a long life. And Hollywood and the public are in debt to her for that.

Alan Eichler: Hour Magazine- Gary Collins Interviewing Lana Turner: 1982 TV Interview

Posted in Baby Lana | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AEI: Ramesh Ponnuru- Up From Illiberalism

Attachment-1-892

Source: Bloomberg News

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I’m not going to argue here that anyone who is not a Liberal and is on the Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, but who are lets say small d democrats and people who believe in at least some democracy and believe in things like limited government, rule of law, individual rights, free press, property rights, etc, are illiberal. Because small d center-right democrats if anything believe in liberal values. Free speech, freedom of choice, right to privacy, property rights, checks and balances at least in government, free press, rule of law, etc.

My argument is that there illiberal’s on the Right and on the Left. Far-Right and Far-Left, people who are so hard-core in their own political beliefs and believe they have all the right answers and that any form of opposition is not only a threat to them and to the people they claim they want to serve. People on the Far-Right who view a free press and open democracy as a threat to their political power. People on the Left who see free speech and individual choice as dangerous things because to means people may be offended and may make bad decisions with their choices. But if you look at Venezuela which is supposed to be a democracy and yet you have a socialist government there that also sees free democracy and a free press as threats to their regime and have clamped down on democracy and free press.

Illiberal means someone who is opposed to liberal principles. Like restricting free thought which is free speech or free behavior. The ability for people to live in freedom and make their own decisions. Someone who is intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened. Again, that covers people on the Far-Right like Nationalists in Russia and in other Slavic countries., theocrats and monarchs in the Middle East. But also Socialists in Venezuela, as well as Communists in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

Conservatives and Libertarians on the right, believe in free thought, free assembly, free choice, individual rights, free press, checks and balances, rule of law, limited government, democracy. Democratic Socialists believe in democracy at least, but also in a free press, but also at least some individual rights like privacy and even property rights in the sense they don’t want government running the entire economy, unlike Marxists.

Where Democratic Socialists would differ from Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, is that they tend to value what they would call welfare rights over individual rights. They believe everyone is entitled to well-being and see the government as having the main responsibility in seeing that everyone is able to live well. Even if individual freedom and free choice is restricted to see that everyone can live well.

This discussion about illiberalism which generally gets to around what’s going on in Turkey and Russia right now which both are at best illiberal democracies where free press and democracy at are best heavily restricted there and where people in both countries have been arrested there simply for opposing the current government’s in both countries, is not about Liberals versus everyone else.

But people who believe in liberal values like free speech, free assembly, free choice, privacy, free and fair and elections, free press, rule of law, limited government, versus people who don’t. And people on the Center-Left like Liberals and Progressives (at least in the classical sense) and people on Center-Right like Conservatives and Libertarians, share these liberal values. Whereas people both on the Far-Left and Far-Right, Nationalists, Communists, and now Neo-Communists like in Venezuela, are the people in the world who are illiberal and practice illiberalism as a tool to accomplish their political objectives. And see their job as crushing the opposition by all means in order to accomplish their political objectives.

Attachment-1-893

Source: Audio Pedia

Audio Pedia: Illiberal Democracy

Posted in Big Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment