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.