DW-TV: Claudia Kleinert- Gorgeous, Sexy Meteorologist

Source:DW-TV- Meteorologist Claudia Kleinert.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Am Dienstagabend des 27. Dezember`s 2011 moderierte sehr charmant Claudia Kleinert das Wetter im Ersten.”

From DW-TV 

“Claudia Kleinert – diese Jeans sitzt! 😉 SWR-Wetter am 28.08.2013”

Source:DW-TV- weatherwoman Claudia Kleinert.

From Papa Paul  

Claudia Kleinert didn’t do all of her weather reports from DW-TV in skin-tight denim jeans and boots. Sometimes she would do them in a skirt as well, but when she did them in the skin-tight jeans, they’re so memorable, because she tall, gorgeous, sexy, with beautiful legs. Sort of a stereotypical (if not typical) German woman on TV. You don’t tend to see weather reports in America from female meteorologists who are dressed like this and so sexy very often, but with Claudia you see them on a regular basis. 

Source:DW-TV- weatherwoman Claudia Kleinert.

I guess the wardrobe standards are just very different in Europe, or at least in Germany when it comes to let's say professional white collar work, where you need some type of degree just to have the knowledge and qualifications, to do that job, like being in the media and reporting live on TV. Which is what Claudia Kleinert does as a weatherwoman for DW-TV in Berlin. Because over there you can wear the skin-tight denim and even leather jeans, and wear them with short, tight tops, shirts and jackets, with a big belt, where every guy watching your broadcast is not just going to notice you, but can't wait to see you again perform in that outfit.

Source:DW-TV- DW-TV Meteorologist Claudia Kleinert.

Love Claudia Kleinert period at least from what I’ve seen from her on YouTube. Great voice whether she’s speaking German or English and great face as well. She actually makes the weather seem interesting to listen to. Which couldn’t be a small task, because that would probably be like making listening to someone read from a phonebook interesting.

But I believe similar to actress’s Kim Novak and Angie Dickinson, just because of their delivery, they can make mediocre scripts sound great just because of how they deliver them. Simply because of their delivery.

But that is just how she sounds and does the weather. Throw in the skinny denim jeans in the black leather boots and she got this gorgeous sexy goddess with the body as well in that great outfit and it is just a lot of extra icing on a very large cake. A gorgeous sexy well-built women, which is very common in Germany and with German women around the world regardless of country. And she makes listening to the weather anything but like listening to a roll call in Congress, or someone reading from a phonebook.

David Rosman: U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy and Reverend Jerry Falwell- Liberty Baptist College (1983)

Source:David Rosman- U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) being introduced at Liberty University.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"On October 4, 1983, Rev. Jerry Falwell introduced Sen. Edward Kennedy, who gave one of his most famous and praised speeches on Faith, Truth and Tolerance in america."

From David Rosman

"Sen. Ted Kennedy speaks at Liberty Baptist College on Oct. 4, 1983 as Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Sr. watches on the right. (Photos by Les Schofer)  

Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. said the Liberty University community will be remembering the Kennedy family in prayer.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a friend of Liberty University’s founder, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, and his family, died late Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., after a long battle with brain cancer.

Kennedy, 77, had spoken at Liberty and conversed with Falwell, Sr. on many occasions.

Jerry Falwell, Jr. wrote about Kennedy’s relationship with his father in the July/August “Liberty Journal.” An excerpt is below." 

Source:Liberty University- U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) and Reverend Jerry Falwell, in 1983.

From David Rosman

Senator Ted Kennedy, would be one of the few Northeastern Progressive Democrats that could give a speech at a Southern Evangelical university like Liberty University. Because Senator Kennedy was someone who could work outside of his element. Especially when he didn’t have enough power to get everything he wanted on an issue. 

Ted Kennedy was a legislature before he was a politician. Which is why you see Senator Kennedy on the same stage not debating with Reverend Jerry Falwell (one of the fathers of the Religious-Right in America) and they make about as odd of a couple as Reverend Jesse Jackson giving a speech at a KKK rally. Something just seems odd about it.

But you have to remember that two of Senator Kennedy’s best friends in Congress were Senator Orrin Hatch and John Boehner. (Now Speaker of the House) Two of the most Conservative Republicans in Congress. But Senator Kennedy was one of the best speakers when it came to truth and tolerance and civil rights in America. 

You don’t have the legislative record in Congress as a Senator, without the ability to not only work with your colleagues in the Senate and people in your party, but you also have to not only be able to work with Senator’s from the other party, but people in the House of Representatives as well. At least in your own party if your party is in the majority there. Ted Kennedy, understood all of that.

Perhaps not as articulate as Lyndon Johnson, Martin King or Bill Clinton, but you knew when Ted Kennedy spoke about those issues, that he was speaking from his heart that these were issues that really believed in. Which is why Senator Kennedy always had one of the best civil rights records in Congress. 

And Senator Kennedy’s contribution to the immigration reform debate in 2006-07, is a perfect example of that. Truth and tolerance and civil rights, are just as important as they were in 1983 84 when this speech was given, as it is today. To speak what’s on your mind and tell the truth and what you really believe.

Tolerance and cooperation, is something we didn’t have enough in politics and the rest of the country back then. But at least in the 1980s both parties believed in government and governing. And we're smart enough to know they had to work with the other party in order to govern. 

Now it’s about how do you make the other side look bad so you can score politically. And that has just gotten worst today. Tolerance, treat people as you would want to be treated. Until they’ve proven they’re not worthy of your respect. And judge people by the content of the character, not by the color of their skin. Or the shape of their face or style of their hair or any other thing that has to do with their race or ethnicity.

Don’t judge people by their name, or what religion they practice (if any) what gender they are attracted to physically and so on. That we treat people as people not groups. We don’t treat people special because they are a member of a group, good or bad. That we judge all people as people not members of groups. 

Which is something that Senator Kennedy understood very well for the most part. And is something that as we become even more diverse as a country is a message that needs to be understood and communicated even more today. Seeing Ted Kennedy with Jerry Falwell on the same stage not debating each other and actually being nice to each other.

Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, were the definition of Odd Couple. Perhaps they could’ve had their own sitcom. Like the Irish Baptist, or Out of Place or something like that, Strange Bedfellows. Except they would both be straight. Jerry Falwell getting on Ted Kennedy for falling off bar stools and Ted Kennedy getting on the Reverend for preaching to the choir in their living room, literally as he’s trying to sleep. An Odd Couple that could get along.

But even people who are clearly opponents when it comes to politics and have to defeat other side to accomplish their goals, can get along with each other. If they understand that they are opponents and not enemies that are always in combat seeking to destroy the other side.

Frozen Feet Films: Fritz- The Walter Mondale Story

Source:Amazon- About the life and career of former U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States, Walter Mondale. 

Source:FRS FreeState 

"Fritz tells the story of the life and legacy of former Vice President Walter "Fritz" Mondale and his efforts to inspire a new generation to consider a life of public service. Featuring rare archival footage, family home videos, and interviews with President Carter, Vice President Al Gore, Geraldine Ferraro, Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson, friends and family reveal a man who never wavered in his commitment to civil and human rights. Throughout his accomplished career - attorney general, senator, vice president, presidential candidate, ambassador, and teacher - Mr. Mondale has remained true to his small town roots, dedicated to helping others." 

From Amazon

Source:Frozen Street Films- from the Fritz documentary about Walter Mondale.

Walter Mondale to me is someone who was ahead of his time, the way all Vice Presidents since are judged. Because he was the first Vice President with real authority or at least the first since Richard Nixon. But Vice President Mondale designed how the Vice Presidents Office looks today, serving as the President's Chief Counsel on policy and perhaps even politics as well. As well as basically the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration. Something he, Vice President Bush, Vice President Gore, Vice President Cheney and Vice President Biden all have done well. 

Pre-Walter Mondale except maybe for Vice President Nixon, the Office of the Vice President was basically ceremonial. Counting the days to when their term was over or when it’s time to campaign again or they would preside over the U.S. Senate. When Congress was in session, it wasn’t a very important office.

Today the Vice Presidency is important. When instead of the Vice President presiding over the Senate, they are basically the President’s Chief Representative to Congress. As well as their other duties at the White House. And Vice President Mondale made that office definite. 

Then Senator Walter Mondale worked out an agreement with Jimmy Carter when they ran together in 1976, that if he was to be Carter’s Vice President, that he would have to have real responsibility in that office. The Vice President under the U.S. Constitution, is the first officer in the Federal Government. Only the President out ranks him. And that’s how it was in the Cater Administration, except it was no longer just on paper, but in practice as well and I believe that job and office of the modern Vice Presidency, is a major part of Walter Mondale's legacy. 

Democratic Media: '1960 DNC: John F. Kennedy Teams Up With Rival Lyndon B. Johnson'

Source:Democratic Media- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) accepting the 1960 Democratic Party nomination for President, in Los Angeles, California.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"JFK's choice of LBJ helps to deliver Texas and shows running mates can help win elections." 

From Democratic Media

Source:Heritage Auctions- JFK and LBJ teaming up in 1960.

1960 was the last presidential election where a Vice Presidential nomination was the difference in who was elected President. Because Jack Kennedy already had the votes of the Liberal and Progressive Democrats. Especially in the North who could care less about Senator Kennedy being an Irish-Catholic, Northeastern Liberal from Massachusetts. 

But because of those factors Southern Democrats (who are Conservative Republicans today) weren't convinced that Jack Kennedy was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. Which is why Lyndon Johnson who was also the Leader of the Senate at the time, was so critical to this ticket, because he was a Southern Democrat at least regionally.

With the Kennedy-Johnson ticket, this meant Democrats could win both the Northeast and South, as well as California. Because Kennedy could work the liberal states and Johnson could work the Southern states. Because the Northeast was probably going to vote for Kennedy anyway, but with Johnson on the ticket, Johnson could convince Southern Democrats that an Irish-Catholic, Northeastern Liberal was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. And Senator Kennedy's speech to Southern Baptists in 1960 in Houston where he came out for being in favor of Separation of Church and State and that he wouldn't take orders from the Pope in policy and decision-making.

In some ways Democrats in 1960 had a dream ticket, with the future of the Democratic Party. A real superstar in the best sense of the word, not a flash in the pan running with the most powerful Democrat in the country. Someone who was more than qualified to be President of the United States 1960. 

This is not the last or first presidential election where the Vice Presidential nominee was important. It was also important in 1952 with Richard Nixon, 1976 with Walter Mondale, 1980 with George Bush, 1992 with Al Gore, 2000 with Dick Cheney, 2008 with Joe Biden. But 1960 was the last one where the VP nominee was able to deliver votes and states for the ticket. 

CBS News: 'Tony La Russa Retires as St. Louis Cardinals Manager'

Source:CBS News- Tony La Russa: Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals (1996-2011) announcing his retirement as manager after winning the MLB World Series.

"Tony La Russa announced his retirement as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals three days after winning a seven-game world series against the Texas Rangers." 

From CBS News

The only thing keeping Tony La Russa out of the Hall of Fame as a manager was himself, because he's been managing for 33 years consecutively, his whole career, and I believe he's been the best manager in Major League Baseball that whole period, and that includes people like Tommy Lasorda, Billy Martin, Earl Weaver briefly, Bobby Cox. Joe Torre, Roger Craig, Jim Leyland, and many others.   Some may say Joe Torre because of the championships:  4 World Series Championships, 6 American League Championships, 11 Eastern Division Championships, and 13 playoff appearances.  Only Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox come close to those accomplishments in this time period.

But when Joe Torre was with the New York Yankees from 1996 to 2007, you could make a case that he had the best team in MLB every year he was there, especially from 1998 to 2007, but they came up short several times, as in 2001 losing to the underdog Phoenix Diamondbacks, 2003 losing to the underdog Miami Marlins, both in the World Series, 2002 losing to the underdog Anaheim Angels in the American League Championship, and 2004 blowing a 3-0 Series lead to the Boston Red Sox in the American League Championship, something that will always be hated by Yankee Fans and loved by Red Sox Fans.  I know a few of those fans myself. And of course the Yankees always had the most money in this time period and could always basically put all-star teams together to win the World Series.

Other than the time period during which Tony La Russa was with the Oakland Athletics from 1988 to 1990 or 1991, he was there from 1986 to 1995, but in those 4 years you could make a pretty good case that the Athletics should have won at least three World Series if not four, because from 1988 to 1990 they had the best three teams in baseball.  And they only won one World Series.  Of course, one is better then nothing but in the two World Series that the Athletics lost in 1988 and 1990, they won a total of one game.

They lost 4-1 in the 1988 World Series to, I believe, the worst World Series Champion since 1969, the Los Angeles Dodgers, who only won something like 85 games that season.  And of course you had the famous Kirk Gibson home run in game one to win that game against the best closer in baseball at the time, Dennis Eckersly.  When Tony La Russa was in St. Louis with the Cardinals from 1996 to 2011, he didn't always have the best team and he still won 7-8 Central Division Championships, three National League Championships, and two World Series, and made the playoffs 9-10 times again. When only four teams make the playoffs in each league, they may go up to 5-6 teams in 2012, but we'll see. 

Tony La Russa was the best manager in MLB in his era as well as today because of what he got out of his players for the most part, not including his time in Oakland, but definitely in St. Louis, a midsize market. But with a great fan base, if not the best in MLB, it was just a matter of when Tony La Russa would retire.  That would determine when he was going into the Hall of Fame, because he's a first ballot Hall of Famer in waiting.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

VOA News: Jim Bertel- U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy Dead at 77: The Dream Shall Never Die

Source:VOA News- U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) the lion of the Senate.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Senator Edward Kennedy was the last of the Kennedy sons born to Rose and Joseph Kennedy. He followed the trail blazed by his brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General and Senator Robert Kennedy, both assassinated in the 1960s. Ted Kennedy was known as the Lion of the Senate and was respected for his long-term commitment to health care for all Americans.  On Tuesday night, at his home in Massachusetts, he lost his hard fought battle with brain cancer.  VOA's Jim Bertel has more on the career of this Democratic icon."

From VOA News 

When I think of the late Senator Ted Kennedy Edward M. Kennedy, I think of someone who represents the heart of the Democratic Party. Someone who represents the best of the Democratic Party as far as the things that we as Democrats have been fighting for going back at least to the 1930s or longer. Individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, equality of opportunity for all, civil rights for all, workers rights, the little people, health care and health insurance for everybody. Retirement security for everybody, a foreign policy that represents the best of America. Basically a quality shot at the American Dream for everyone. Now we as Democrats don't always agree on how to accomplish these things.

Democrats tend to have the same goals, but differ in how to accomplish those goals. Some times we don't agree on any of those things as far how to accomplish them. We've always been a very diverse party. Politically, racially, different ethnicity's and everything else. We are basically a political party of three different parties in one. And thats what happens when you have a two-party System in a country as large and as diverse as we are. But its that progressive agenda of the party that brings us together when we come together. And a lot of that credit goes to Senator Ted Kennedy who's been the heart of the Democratic Party at least since 1980. When he unsuccessfully ran for President in 1980 and sort of took that mantle from Lyndon Johnson. When he left the White House in 1969 and when his brother Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

Ted Kennedy didn't represent the Democratic agenda as far as exactly what the policy's would look like. Which is what Ron Reagan did for the Republican Party. he represented their agenda as well as policy's. Even though Senator Kennedy had his own policy's for all the key issues he cared about. The Democratic Leadership or the party as a whole, wasn't always behind the bills that Senator Kennedy wrote. But they shared the same goals on a lot of bills that Senator Kennedy got passed out of Congress. He did that by working with the Democratic Leadership, Senate Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, John Chaffee, Arlen Spector and others. And then working out a compromise with the House whichever party was in charge.

Senator Kennedy, was also good at working out agreements with the White House. This is how legislating works in Washington and Senator Kennedy is about as good or the best legislature we've ever produced. But Ted Kennedy has been a big reason why the Democratic agenda has always been the same for the last 45-50 years. And a big reason why they've been able to pass a lot of that agenda, including health care reform which they passed in 2010. And still serves as the inspiration for the Democratic Party today. If the United States had a system where each party had their own official leader, whether they are the ruling party or not, meaning they run the executive, which is what most democracy's have, then Ted Kennedy would've been that guy for the Progressive Party. Because he was the person that could bring the party together when times were good or bad. And is a big reason why he's the Heart of the Democratic Party. 

John Fitzhamh: 'The Iranian Hostage Crisis'

Source:John Fitzhamh- President James E. Carter (Democrat, California) I believe meeting with his National Security Council in 1979. But I don't know that for sure.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"The Iranian Hostage Crisis" 

From John Fitzhamh

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was awful for lots of reasons. For one, the hostages who had to go through that ordeal. The hostages friends and families who had to go through that ordeal. The American People who had to go through this ordeal as well with all the news coverage and news specials that was dedicated to covering the hostage crisis. The country had to not only go through this ordeal, but also the embarrassment that came with it with how weak America looked as a result, that a group of students Islamic Terrorists in a third-world country could essentially take a country hostage.As well as take an American presidency hostage. 

President Carter had to go through the Iranian hostage crisis as well (obviously) and probably crushed whatever hope he had left in getting reelected in 1980, especially with Senator Ted Kennedy announcing that he would run for president in the Democratic primaries. 

America in this period was already going through a very rough period especially economically with double figure interest as well as inflation rates, with another recession in 1978 as well as 1980 and was facing several other issues that all commanded the attention of the Carter Administration. 

But when you have American hostages in a foreign country especially in a country thats not friendly with where we had already closed our embassy there, thats job one. And you stay on that job until you (pardon the pun) get the job done. (To paraphrase President Richard M. Nixon) 

The Carter Administration was on top of the hostage crisis and I give them credit for that despite all of the other issues they were dealing with. Like looking weak (to use as an example) with Russia invading Afghanistan a neighbor of Iran in late 1979 to try to install a communist government there. 

There are lots of reasons that led to the Iranian hostage crisis, none of them justified taking innocent people hostage. But most of them America's fault and the Iranians were justified in being angry at America. The main reason I believe being the Shah of Iran who was installed by the United States and United Kingdom. And could be removed and replaced at anytime the U.S. and U.K. wanted to.

The Shah even though he was pretty progressive on economic and foreign policy and was a very bright man, was brutal dictator in how he dealt with political dissent in Iran. And this was a reason why the Islamic Revolution started in 1978 and took over the Iranian Government in early 1979. 

And the Shah fled to Egypt and an Islamic Theocracy was formed in Iran in 1979. And of course the Iranian hostage crisis in November 4, 1979. And even though the United States officially declared War on Terror in late 2001 after 9/11, I believe we were already in this war over twenty years earlier.

I believe the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the start of it in 1979. The U.S. Marine barracks bombing in 1982. Libya's sponsoring of terrorism in the mid and late 1980s in Lockerbie, Scotland and other areas as well. 

And then you go to the 1990s with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. As well as Saudi Arabia in 1996 and the East African Embassy bombings in 1998. America was already in the War on Terror long before 2001, we just hadn't officially declared it yet.

John Kramer: 'SNL Politics Reviewed: Alec Baldwin Gives The GOP Schweddy Balls'

Source:John Kramer- the guy on the right is Alec Baldwin. Not sure about the other guy.

"Welcome to the 37th season of Saturday Night Live, with its opening show hosted by Alec Baldwin.  SNL Politics Yes, it's Saturday Night, Alec Baldwin now holds the record for hosting SNL the most times, and if there's anyone out there who should have Scweddy Balls it's the Republican Party...

Source: John Kramer

I can sum up the Republican presidential debates in several paragraphs or less, so I will. 

Mitt Romney- "Vote for me because I can win." And his other slogan being:"If you're for it so am I." Well, Mitt Romney on truth serum.

Newt Gingrich who I do take seriously as an intellectual until he says something thats provocative. But then realizes its unpopular and tries to get away from it. As long as he doesn't preach about moral values: "Don't do because I've done it and I know from personal experience that some of these activities in life, well, take adultery (to use as an example) are simply personally wrong. It's wrong which is why you shouldn't do it. Even though I had a great time doing like having an affair with one of my staffers as Speaker of the House. When I was preaching about the moral decay of President Clinton". Newt Gingrich won't be up for Sainthood anytime soon, unless he pays to get in. And he is also unqualified to be a Monk, which may be why he's stopped preaching about moral values.

You have a classical Libertarian in Ron Paul, who apparently walked into a Republican Party one day, thinking he was at a Libertarian Convention. And hasn't found his way out of the Republican Party and is probably also unaware that he's at a party thats dominated by the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives. And the Tea Party that at least part of them are in bed with the Religious-Right. And are so warm there, that they can't get out of bed. 

Then there's John Huntsman and Gary Johnson who have no shot at the Republican nomination because they would both make excellent Liberal Democrats and they are both sane and that just ain't going to cut it in today's Republican Party.

I would mention Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, but like I said I could sum up the Republican presidential debates in a few paragraphs or less. And since I'm not a politician or running for public office, I can stick with positions I've already made. Other to say that they are both American citizens, born in America and 35 or older. (At least as far as I know) And besides I have nothing to say nice about either of them. Other than maybe Senator Santorum who I'll admit he's one of the most honest politicians I know of. And that is a complement in todays politics, its just that he knows so much that isn't true and actually believes in it. Which would make Rick scary as a President. And Michele Bachmann just proves that even mental patients, even escaped mental patients are apparently qualified to run for President of the United States, or at least until they are recaptured. 

Rick Perry, well when he decides what he believes and what his plans are for the country, I'll take a look at his presidential campaign. The man keeps teleprompter's in business by himself. 

And with Herman Cain. Well his presidential campaign got suspended so now I would just be piling on. So what the hell, the man is not even qualified to pass a course on sexual harassment awareness. I'm not sure what the exact name for the course, I've never had to take it myself, let alone be President of the United States.

Thats the Republican presidential field of 2011-12, I know I'm thinking the same thing, "is that it". Where's Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Dick Nixon, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, and  Bob Dole? The problem is those people don't exist in the Republican Party anymore and wouldn't get the nomination for President in today's Republican Party because they wouldn't be trusted by the Religious or New-Right, which is the problem for Mitt Romney. Who twenty years ago would've fit in perfectly in the GOP but because of the new Republican Party. he has to say things just to please to them and say different things to different audiences.

C-SPAN: Q&;A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette on Hubert Humphrey: The Art of The Possible

Source: C-SPAN- Brian Lamb-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState

The Art of the Possible, which is the name of a documentary about former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, I believe is the perfect way to describe Hubert Humphrey. Because that’s how Senator Humphrey saw politics and government. Serving the people and trying to solve problems that they face. He didn’t see government as a debating society, where Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, bashed each over the head. With neither party having enough power to destroy the other party. But he saw government as a way to try to solve problems, analyze the issues, examine what the political situation is between both parties and try to find solutions that can pass through Congress and that the President would sign. And Hubert Humphrey had plenty experience at this. Being in Congress for twenty-five years and being the Assistant Leader of the Senate from 1961-65. Leader Mike Mansfield’s deputy and then Vice President from 1965-69.

Hubert Humphrey was pretty busy in that time period with the civil rights legislation. The civil rights debates actually were going on in the late 1940s. When Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate and he made his famous pro-civil rights speech at the 1948 DNC. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act where Humphrey had a big role in getting that bill passed. And ending the Senate filibuster from the Southern right-wing Democrats. And helping to bring aboard some Northern Progressive Republicans. And as Vice President he had a role in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed as well as Medicare health insurance for senior citizens. But I believe Hubert Humphrey’s legacy in Congress was the civil rights legislation. Who without him those bills never get passed.

Hubert Humphrey had the perfect approach to civil rights, because he saw it as about human and constitutional rights. Which trumps states rights, which was of course the argument that the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats were making. That the states had the right to enforce constitutional rights as they see them. Even if it violates constitutional rights of African-Americans and other racial minorities. But the Republican Party of the 1960s even though they were the opposition party from 1961-69 and were a small minority party in both the House and Senate for the whole decade, deserve a lot of credit in Congress for those bills being passed at all.

Congressional Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, deserve a lot of credit for getting the civil rights legislation passed as well, because they don’t pass in the Senate. Without Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who without him these bills never get passed in this era. Hubert Humphrey tends to get lost when we are talking about great politicians and public servants for whatever reason. But without him a lot of important legislation never gets passed. And a lot of Americans would’ve been denied their constitutional rights as a result, just because of their race. Which would’ve been a disgrace in a liberal democracy like America.
C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette in Hubert Humphrey

See Black Power: Minister Malcolm X- 'We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock'

Source:Donnie Mossberg- Minister Malcolm X speaking in 1964.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"MALCOLM X We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock March 29, 1964"

From Sea Black Power

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else.

Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty.

But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival.

Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job.

But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole. 

CNBC: Michele Bachmann Interview- Economic & Social Policy

Source:CNBC- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) being interviewed by CNBC. 

Source:FRS FreeState 

Michele Bachmann: “I have talked to business owners all across the nation,” she said. “They’re really paralyzed with fear right now. This won’t help hearing (the unemployment news) because it shows that Washington doesn’t have the solution.”

She spoke as Congress and the White House are locked in debate over whether to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Bachmann dodged a question over whether the failure to increase the borrowing limit while drastically cutting spending would raise unemployment, but she said more taxes certainly aren’t the answer, either.

“We need to fundamentally restructure how government does spending,” she said. “We’re still operating under the principles of FDR and LBJ. We need to move into the 21st century so we embrace pro-growth policies. Unfortunately they’re tone deaf here in Washington, D.C. They think government is the answer, and the American people know it’s not true.” 

From CNBC

"Michele Bachmann on social issues"   

Source:Think Progress- CNBC interviewing U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann. Representative Bachmann trying not to sound like a mental patient. 

From Think Progress

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool, that represents fiscal Conservatives meaning  business and Center-Right Republicans, national security Conservatives (probably meaning Neoconservatives) and people who are called social Conservatives. (Meaning Christian Conservatives) And in America that would mean the Christian-Right. 

Apparently Representative Bachmann did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy. But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her. 

This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Conservative-Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And she goes off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because her positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Christian-Conservative on social issues and a neo-con on national security and perhaps somewhat fiscally conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Conservative-Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still Conservative-Libertarians out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. 

Michelle Bachmann is a Christian-Fundamentalist a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for. 

NFL Films: Dick Butkus- Most Feared Tackler

Source:Sports Illustrated- Chicago Bears LB Dick Butkus, making the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1970.

"Fill in themissing word: Dick Butkus is the————football player in the world.

Nastiest?Fiercest? Smartest? Strongest? Quickest? Angriest? Coolest? Roughest? Thinkabout it for a while—maybe a moment or two. After all, Butkus (left) thinksabout it constantly.

O.K., time's up.According to those who know him most intimately—and you can count their bruisesto determine the degree of intimacy—Dick Butkus is all of the above and perhapsa bit more. In a sense, he is his own missing word in the act ofself-definition, though some may claim that he is merely the missing link. In agame as complex and specialized as pro football, where experts abound ateverything from placekicking to face-masking, it is impossible to determine a'"best player" in the overall sense. Yet if such a designation could bemade, Butkus would come close to filling it.

Listen to PhilBengtson, the Green Bay coach: "Butkus rates with any linebacker I've everseen—Bulldog Turner, Joe Schmidt, Ray Nitschke, George Connor. He has as muchenthusiasm as any player I've ever known, and you can always count on him beingsharp."'

From Sports Illustrated 

"Butkus is arguably the toughest and most intimidating player in the history of the NFL.

Going across the middle against Butkus was considered attempted suicide. Butkus's opponents said that he would bite, punch, kick, spit, claw, and scratch, whatever it took to get to the man with the ball.

He earned Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1969 and 1970 and played in eight Pro Bowls throughout his career.

NFL Films legend Steve Sabol says that Butkus's career stands as the "most sustained work of devastation ever committed on any field of sport, anywhere, any time."

Source:Bleacher Report- Dick Butkus: The Monster of the Midway.

From Bleacher Report 

"The most feard tackler linebacker and the best all time ever!!!" 

Source:NFL Films- Ernie Accorsi is a long time NFL general manager who worked for both the Baltimore Colts and New York Giants.

From NFL Network 

"Listen to those sound effects. The sound of Butkus hitting people sounds like the thud of distant artillery." 

Source:USA- "Look out!!! Butkus is coming!!!"

From USA

When I think of tough players in the NFL, I think of guys who could and did scare the hell out of their opponents, if not people watching the game as well. I think of guys who not only scared the hell out of their opponents on the football field but on film in practice, putting the fear of God into offenders and offensive coaches and head coaches: "Damn, we are facing this guy this week, how are we going to block him or how many guys are we going to need to block him on any play?"

I can think of a guy who not only hit and tackled his opponents but also hit them so hard that they knew exactly who hit them, because they never felt that kind of pain from anyone else. Offenders were always trying to avoid Dick Butkus, who was a 6’3″, 240 to 245-pound MLB with the Bears from 1965 to 1973 and at his size was playing middle linebacker at a time when everyone else that size was an offensive or defensive lineman. This meant you basically needed an OL to block him, and probably a couple of them.

Butkus was all muscle, and not only huge and strong, but fast as well. He probably ran a 4.4 to 4.5 forty, which is similar to Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis, three LB's who weigh about the same and are all muscle, but Taylor and Lewis played in an era where big LB's were typical. The closest LB I’ve seen to Butkus’s size, strength, and athletic ability would be Brian Urlacher. I am not saying Urlacher is as good as any of these other LB's, because he’s not, but he is headed to the Hall of Fame.

Urlacher is a 6’4″, 265-pound MLB, again the size of a DL playing middle linebacker because of his athletic ability and speed. These guys are freaks as athletes, but especially as linebackers, but Dick Butkus was the first freakish LB who was also a great player and is still the best at his position and best LB ever, period.

The name Dick Butkus itself sounds like a tough guy. It doesn’t sound like the name of a jockey. Wiley Pope sounds like the name of a jockey, but Dick Butkus sounds like the name of a macho individual who probably played football and perhaps even had to play football to relieve some of his testosterone. If he hadn’t played football, he might have ended up in jail or something. That last part is a joke, but you get the idea.

Some people who are less impressed with Dick Butkus (to put it mildly) make the argument that Butkus only played nine seasons, so his greatness isn’t as impressive because it wasn’t as long. What they fail to realize is that what Butkus accomplished in his nine seasons has been matched by no other, which is why he’s the best. Jim Brown also only played nine seasons but what he accomplished in nine seasons, no other running back has matched: nine-time Pro Bowler, eight rushing titles, and never missed a game as well.

Dick Butkus left the NFL as the all-time leader in fumble recoveries, 30 INT again in nine seasons as a MLB, not a corner or safety. He once sacked the quarterback 20 times in a season, again as a MLB not as a DL, also in a 14-game season. But these are just stats. The way to judge Dick Butkus is the same way you need to judge Jim Brown: what did he bring to to the table and what did offenses have to do to stop him?

Another way to judge Dick Butkus is to look at the position he played: he played MLB, meaning that the offense always knew where he lined up and could always prepare for him. He was predictable in a sense, he wasn’t a rush end like a OLB/DE Hybrid who lined up in several different positions always looking for the best matchup like, let’s say, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas.

Offenses knew where he was and still couldn’t stop Butkus. Dick Butkus was the best ever at what he did, because he basically couldn’t be stopped. He played the last four seasons of his career on two bad knees, which is why he only played nine seasons, but he was still an eight-time Pro Bowler. Dick Butkus was the most feared and the best LB to ever live.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show- Ayn Rand: 'Liberty vs. Statism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist author Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand regarding socialism and individual liberty. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same.

Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is: keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much.

And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, let's take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about.

Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism. 

Passionate Patriots: '1968 DNC Nightmare in Chicago'

Source:Passionate Patriots- a look at Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"Chaos before Hubert Humphrey's nomination sets the modern standard for a harmful convention."  

"In the wake of the April 4 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Black communities rose up in more than 100 cities and towns. Opposition to the Vietnam War, which would ultimately claim millions of lives in Southeast Asia, grew, as did U.S. casualties. Of the more than 58,000 Americans who died from 1956 to 1975, more than 14,000 were killed in 1968. In April of that year, police savagely attacked anti-war protesters in Berkeley, Calif., and Chicago, giving the country a preview of what was to come August 26 – 29, when the Democratic Party held its national convention in Chicago." 

From In These Times 

Source:In These Times- Chaos in Richard Daley's Chicago.

From In These Times

The Democratic Party cost themselves the presidential election of 1968 and a chance to win the White House for a third straight time and 8-10 presidential elections, going back to 1932 with FDR. To go along with another Democratic Congress because of how divided they were on the Vietnam War.

A lot of that can be blamed on President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, but this can also be blamed on the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party that was anti-war, period. Even when we are attacked and they can take their anti-war feelings too extreme at times, as we saw with the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention.

The New-Left in the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve all the blame here. The Chicago Police didn’t do a very good job of handling the situation either. And of course Richard Nixon being the master politician that he was, jumped all over on the Democratic division and moved himself to be a unity candidate. Which of course he wasn’t.

By the time President Nixon left office in August of 1974, America if anything was even more divided. 1968 was a crazy year with a lot of bad for the country with some good in it. But all bad for the Democratic Party.

A year where President Johnson announced he wasn’t running for reelection as President because of how unpopular he was. But even had he run for reelection, he would’ve had a very hard time getting renominated by a party that had moved away from him. And had moved into an anti-war socialist direction. That wanted to bring all of our troops home from Vietnam and use that money to build the country.

1968 was also a crazy year for Democrats who once they moved away from LBJ, the Far-Left flank of the party went searching for their own candidate to take on the GOP in the fall. First it was Senator Eugene McCarthy until Senator Robert Kennedy declared his candidacy for President. Then they threw all of their support behind him up until he was assassinated in June of 68. And then of the party went behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment wing of the party.

But some New-Left support went back to Senator McCarthy, as well as Senator George McGovern. Another candidate from the Far-Left flank of the party. As it turned out even though 1968 might have looked like a fluke, it clearly wasn’t. Because in 1972 Democrats had similar issues. They were disorganized, didn’t have a clear leader with more divisive presidential primary’s and once again the Far-Left flank deciding who the Democratic presidential nominee would be Senator George McGovern taking on an establishment GOP Candidate President Nixon and losing 49 States in a landslide.

When the Democratic Party is united it tends to win and do very well. Because it's bigger than the Republican Party and represents more people in the country. But when it’s divided like it was in 68, 72, 80 and 84, it loses very bad. Because a faction of their party doesn’t show up to the polls to vote.