Phyllis Schlafly: Who Killed The American Family

Posted on July 17, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Phyllis Schlafly Who killed American family Eagle Forum

Source:Michael Jacques– Phyllis Schlafly is the founder of the Egale Forum.

“If nothing in Hayek, Mises, Rothbard or Rand supports the abolition, redefinition, or privatization of marriage, then where did those ideas come from? The answer is that they came from writers on the left — most significantly, from the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and published in 1848.

To be sure, Marx did not originate the notion of undermining the family, which had been introduced by the utopian socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, but he eagerly endorsed and propagated it. After Marx’s death, his partner Friedrich Engels wrote a whole book elaborating on Marx’s anti-family ideas.

A major part of the Communist Manifesto is its unrelenting attack on the so-called “bourgeois family” which Marx believed was responsible for the inequality he despised. If communism was to succeed, he wrote, the bourgeois family had to be done away with.

The bourgeois family is the Marxist term for what modern liberals call the “Ozzie and Harriet” or “nuclear” family. It means a husband and wife who are legally married to each other, using the husband’s name, with the husband as provider and authority figure, and the wife as nurturing homemaker, and with both parents raising and educating their own children within the household.

Marx hated the bourgeois family, not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.”

From Michael Jacques

“Political junkies will remember how former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was being groomed to run for president in 2012 before he made his foolish statement that the next president should “call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Americans do not want a leader who is unable or unwilling to articulate and lead on important social issues.

Four years after the Daniels misstep, many have failed to learn that lesson. The New York Times has proclaimed the “libertarian moment” has arrived, by which they seem to mean libertarian ideas about marriage and the family.

We hear people say the libertarian view is to “get the government out of marriage.” But where did that slogan come from? There is simply no basis for that notion in the works of classic libertarian writers.”

Phyllis Schlafly

Source:Eagle Forum– Phyllis Schlafly is the founder of the Eagle Forum.

From the Eagle Forum

Pro-family, to the Traditional Values Coalition and TVC Warriors (let’s call them) that Phyllis Schlafly, is certainly one of, idea of pro-family policies, has to do with this 1950s, or 1940s lifestyle of what they think America is.

The American Family to the Christian-Right is two parents, man and woman, father and mother. Anything outside of that is seen to them as immoral and even Un-American. You could argue that being against abortion is pro-family. Because you’re saying you are in favor of preventing fetus’s from being terminated and therefore more babies would be born. Because these Un-aborted fetus’s would end up becoming babies. I disagree with this, being pro-choice on abortion. But you could make a credible argument on that.

But this idea that homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage to be more specific, is Un-American, or anti-family and therefore needs to be eliminated even through big government force, which some on the Far-Right, perhaps even Phyllis Schalfly herself in the name of protecting American families, is stupid. There’s no real evidence backing that up. Which is why an overwhelming majority of Americans now don’t have a problem with gays simply because they are gay. And tend to judge gays as people.

Even as much as the Christian-Right has dominated the Republican Party and to a certain extent American politics with some of the Republican Congress’s we’ve had the last twenty years, their influence on American politics now is plummeting. As more Americans, especially young Americans, are more liberal, libertarian and tolerant, than even their parents.

Since the late 1970s or so and you could probably go back to 1974-75, lets say post-Richard Nixon and after the Roe V Wade decision, the Christian-Right, has been a major force in the Republican Party. Coming over from the Democratic Party as the former Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party.

Since the late 1970s with the Far-Right in America stepping up to take on the liberalization of the 1960s and the Cultural Revolution and all the cultural freedom that came from that era, has had a major influence on the Republican Party and fighting the Culture War. Taking on issues like homosexuality, abortion, pornography, Hollywood in general, Women’s Liberation, multiculturalism in general, which served the Republican Party well in the elections that they’ve won in the last forty years. But they’re now paying a price as America has moved left and become more liberal, libertarian and tolerant on social issues and cultural in general.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Commonwealth Club: Charles Murray: ‘Rebuilding Liberty’

Posted on July 16, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Charles Murray

Source:Commonwealth Club– Author Charles Murray, being interviewed at the Commonwealth Club, about his book Rebuilding Liberty.

“Charles Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Author, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.”

From the Commonwealth Club

Charles Murray, at least in the first fifteen minutes of his presentation here, concentrates on what he calls over regulations. And assuming his stories are true, I agree with what he’s saying here.

And I’m not a fan of over regulation either. Passing regulations either through the economy, or in civil life, that tries to control how people behave personally in the economy, or their personal lives, is over regulating and a good example of big government. Government, should regulate how people and organizations, interact with each other. To to stop and prevent predatory behavior. Not to protect people from themselves. Either financially, or personally.

But I’m more interested with this piece about talking about rebuilding liberty in general. And I’m going to do that without bashing government, just big government. And laying out what government can do to actually expand freedom, both personal and economic.

I agree with Charles Murray as a Liberal, that it’s not the job of government to regulate how people live their own lives and what they do with themselves. But regulate how people interact with each other. Not try to prevent people from doing dangerous actions to themselves. And punish them when they do. But to prevent people from hurting innocent people and punish people when they do hurt innocent people.

If government worked the way I’m suggesting here, we wouldn’t have the War on Drugs and so many people in prison in America for non-violent offenses. At least not serving long-term sentences in dangerous prisons for non-violent offenses. And we wouldn’t have so many people in prison in general.

If our safety net, which I’m not against in having one, but if our safety net was designed to empower people in need who are struggling to get themselves on their feet and not just leave them struggling, but with a little more money, we wouldn’t have so many people in poverty in America. Because the less-fortunate, would get on public assistance, but them use some of that assistance to improve themselves. So they can get themselves a good job and get out of poverty all together.

In a true liberal society, or liberal democracy, liberal state even, the job of government would be to protect and expand freedom. Not subtract, or contract freedom, or view freedom as dangerous and try to turn the country into a collectivist society. Where government would collect most of the national resources and decide what everyone needs to live well in life. But again protect freedom for people who already have it and haven’t done anything to lose it.

And also expand freedom for people who don’t have it. Who are living in poverty and help them get themselves out of poverty by learning a trade and getting themselves a good job. Who may be serving time in prison, or jail and empowering them to improve themselves so when they get out, they can become productive citizens. And that is not the type of society that America is right now. But we certainly could become that liberal society.

Posted in Book TV, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Economist: ‘America’s Elderly Prisoner Boom’

Posted on July 16, 2015 by Erik Schneider

“America's elderly prisoner boom _ The Economist

Source:The Economist– growing old in a California prison.

Thanks to ultra-long sentences, America’s 2.3m prisoners are getting older. Under the ‘Gold coats’ programme in California, younger inmates look after elderly ones…

From The Economist

A couple of things hit me when I watched this video. One, the fact that America at least at the state level, has moved away from prison industries in too many cases and instead has turned prison into warehouses, where inmates either grow really old there, or are essentially just waiting to die with no real reason to live, even in prison.

One of the consequences of prison warehouses is that taxpayers get stuck paying for the cost of living of people, especially elderly inmates, who could’ve been working this whole time even in prison. And paying for their own cost of living. Including the lifers and putting money away for their retirement in prison.

The other thing that hit me, was that prisons have become the place where we send all of our difficult and challenging members of society. All of our outsiders, that are guilty of some felony, especially violent felonies, end up in prison. Which makes prisons in America very expensive.

Prison’s, should be for felons, especially violent felons.

Mental hospitals, state hospitals for the criminally insane, should be for criminally insane and mentally handicapped people who are convicted of felonies and are violent.

Jails, should be for people awaiting trial and for small time criminals, especially if they’re doing short sentences.

Halfway houses, should be for convicted felons, who don’t pose a major threat to society. They need either rehab, or learn a trade and do community service. But by in-large are productive people, or can become productive people, who just need a path to make that happen.

Retirement homes and senior homes, should be for seniors, including convicted felons, who can’t take care of themselves. Who pose no threat to anyone other than maybe themselves.

I’m not saying that we should transfer every senior inmate to private senior citizens homes. But we need a senior health care system for our senior inmates, who are just too weak to take care of themselves at this point in their lives, let alone strong enough to hurt innocent people. And set up senior homes outside of prison, for our senior inmates, that could be run by the private sector. That could be paid for by the senior inmates themselves. Based on the money they’ve earned the whole time they’ve been in prison. Instead of sending every single person in America, who poses some challenge to society, or did pose some challenge, to prison.


Posted in Originals, The Economist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Obama White House: President Obama’s- Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Source: The Obama White House: President Obama’s- Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

President Obama, once again nailed it, when he said that without this deal, which is of course is a deal, Iran would get the nuclear weapons that they want anyway. There are four choices here and only one of them are good. You do nothing else other than current economic sanctions that are crushing the Iranian economy, but not stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons. You try to take the Iranian nuclear weapons program out from the air with air strikes. Even though they have nuclear power plants underground. You invade the country, go to war with them and if you’re successful there, then you try to take the weapons out that way. Or you prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons peacefully. Which is what dealmaking and compromise is about.

Compromises and deals, by definition are imperfect. You get something you want, or need by giving up something you don’t need, or value as much. With this deal, we can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange if Iran complies with the deal, they get economic and sanctions relief that will benefit their economy and their people. Which would make the Iranian Government look better with the Iranian people, but also makes America look better with the Iranian people as well. Who doesn’t like their government, but aren’t fans of the U.S. Government either.

What would the opponents of this deal and President Obama do instead? Invade Iran, a country the size of Saudi Arabia physically, but with seventy-five-million people? Even though they wouldn’t support any resolution that would empower President Obama to take America to war with Iran. Again with the air strikes, Congress wouldn’t support that most likely . And the Iranian Government has nuclear power plants underground. Continue to negotiate for a better deal? What would a better deal be? Iran, is going to have to get something substantial out of any deal, or they aren’t going to sign on to it. President Obama, got the best available deal here that could actually work. And deserves a lot of credit for it.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

American Enterprise Institute: Arthur Brooks- ‘Why America’s Best Interests Lie Within The Conservative Heart’

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Arthur Brooks

Source: AEI

Source: American Enterprise Institute: Arthur Books- ‘ Why America’s Best Interests Lie Within The Conservative Heart’

Arthur Brooks, the President of the center-right conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, here in Washington, has a new book called The Conservative Heart. The basic point is how conservative policies can help people in poverty move up and get out of poverty and live in economic freedom. Where most of the country lives. He argues that the old progressive New Deal and Great Society War on Poverty has failed. But that Conservatives, have never offered a real alternative to address poverty in America so that we don’t have so many Americans living in poverty. He argues that we should get past the debate of government trying to do everything for people who are struggling, versus government should do almost nothing.

I actually agree with a lot of what Brooks is saying here and is what The New Democrat argues all the time from the Center-Left. That we need a bridge between the democratic socialist model, that says government should do practically everything for people and the conservative libertarian model that government should do practically nothing for people, even people who are struggling. That government should butt out and let the free market work its will.

But we don’t need a so-called Third Way, that is more centrist minded. There are really good liberal and conservative policies that would help reduce poverty in America. Liberal policies built around education, job training and infrastructure. To help people in poverty whether they are working, or not, to finish and further their education, so they can get themselves a good job. Conservative policies built around economic development in low-income communities.

It’s good to hear a Conservatives like Arthur Brooks, or Representative Paul Ryan, especially when the right-wing in America is so dominant by the Tea Party and Conservative Libertarians, say that not only does government have a role to help reduce poverty in America, but it can play a positive role as well. That people who are physically and mentally able, should work in America, unless they are already economically independent. That people shouldn’t be allowed to collect public assistance indefinitely, simply because they aren’t educated, or have kids, or a combination of both. Liberals and Conservatives, actually agree on this. But that low-skilled adults in America should have a pathway to prosperity in America. The ability to improve themselves, learn a trade and get out of poverty all together.

Posted in Book TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Opinion- Anne Applebaum- Greece is a Turning Point For The European Union

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Greece

Source:The Washington Post– Greek money is looking more like Monopoly money everyday.

Anne Applebaum talking about Greece and the European Union, at The Washington Post. Her column is apparently unavailable to read right now.

From The Washington Post

“The resounding rejection of the bailout referendum by the Greek people has caused shouts of joy across the nation, but will it cause ripples throughout the rest of the eurozone? Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, tells Manila Chan about how the ‘No’ vote might be more detrimental to the Greek people than they imagine.”

From RT America

EU cannot allow Greece to hold everyone hostage – Peter Schiff

Source:RT America– “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government. Wikipedia.” 

Wow! I actually agree with Anne Applebaum on something. I tend to see her as a Neoconservative, at least when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But she’s damn right in most if not her entire piece about Greece and Europe.

The problem with the Euro, the European currency, is that you have a large developed country like Germany of eighty-plus million people, that’s economy looks more like America and Canada, than it does Sweden. Germany, is not a socialist state, they can’t really afford to be one. They invest heavily and education, energy and infrastructure. They promote free trade and private economic development in their country. They require people who can, to work and take care of their health care through their private health care system. And as a result, they are now the power in Europe. Economic, but have real political and defense as well and are the fourth largest economy in the world. With living standards, that are equal, or better than America’s.

But then you have a small semi-developed country like Greece. Where the average Greek, makes about 1/3 of the average German, or American. That is dependent on other countries for its defense, energy and economy. They’re drowning in debt right now. That has one of the largest socialist state’s in the free world. As far as how much their national government spends for its people. Socialists, don’t believe there’s a limit to what government can do for their people. Or how much government can spend for their people. They don’t believe debts and deficits matter and even now as Greece is drowning in their own debt, they still don’t believe that they should have to tighten their belts and cut back on their services. And expect others like Germany, that is very successful economically, to bail them out.

When the Euro was created in Europe in the late 1990s, the idea was that instead of having 25-30 small to medium-sized markets in Europe, you would create one huge market of three-hundred plus million people. That the whole world would want to invest in. On paper, that sounds like a very good idea. And they had strict requirements on debt and deficits. That each member couldn’t let those things reach like four-percent of their economy. And had to manage their financial affairs and not run up high debt and deficits. But again, Greece is one of the members of the Euro and is a socialist unitarian state. That doesn’t believe debt and deficits matter and that there’s no limit to what the state can do for their people. And that they can run up debts and deficits, because their socialism will make their economy stronger. Or someone, like Germany, will bail them out. And Greece, is paying a heavy price for their socialism right now.

A united currency amongst several different countries, doesn’t work very well, unless you have strong rules and rule enforcement and similar economies and economic systems. Which is one of the reasons why Sweden isn’t part of the Euro, because they have a similar economic system as Greece, but are energy independent and can afford their socialism. The idea of having a single market in Europe, makes sense, but the best way to do that is to have a single state, a federal state. With one economy and economic system. With a federal authority to manage the currency and economy. Manage the debt and deficit, negotiate trade deals with other countries, encourage economic investment in the country. From domestic and foreign business’s. As well as defend and secure the country.

A federalist, not federal, but a Federalist Europe, a united European country, that would go from lets say Portugal in the Southwest, to Italy in the Southeast and Belgium in the Northwest and Poland in the Northeast, would benefit all of these Euro States in several ways. You would be talking about the first, or second largest developed economy and country in the world. That could replace NATO with a united European defense, that would be more than capable of defending itself and become a great strong ally of the United States and the United Kingdom and serve as a deterrent to the Russian Federation. With one president, one administration, one Assembly, or Parliament and federal court system all under one federal government. But where the Euro States, would have autonomy over their state and domestic affairs. With the federal government being in charge of interstate and national affairs.

Not saying a Federal State of Europe will ever happen and certainly not happen soon. But for a Euro, or Eurozone to work as well as it possibly can, you need the member states to have either similar economies and living standards, or agree not to let the government spending get out of control. You can’t afford to have a Greece, or a Portugal, or big states like France and Italy, to drown themselves in debt and watch their economies sink and drive down the worth of the Euro. Which makes thinks tough for the rest of the states in the Union. Because they lose customers and investment opportunities when one, or several of their trading partners sinks in debt and depression.

Posted in Europe | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Associated Press: Sandy Kozel- Deal Reached Over Iranian Nuclear Program

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Iran
From what I’ve seen of the Iranian nuclear deal so far, it looks very good to me. The only issue that I have with it is the part where Iran, can veto, or challenge requests made by weapons inspectors to their program. Or get those requests denied by a third-party. But other than that, this looks like a good deal. We, meaning the international community, the Western developed world, actually gets to inspect their nuclear program and make sure they aren’t, or can’t develop nuclear weapons. Iran, gets sanctions relief on their economic sanctions that have had a devastating impact on their economy.

A question I think that Congressional Republicans, especially Neoconservatives like Senator Tom Cotton have to answer, is that if we don’t negotiate with Iran and get a deal with them, what is the consequence of that. What would happen then is that Iran would get their nuclear arms program anyway. Because not even Neoconservatives, seem to be interested in invading and occupying Iran. I guess we could try to take their program out from the air. But they have underground bases and nuclear plants. And to even attempt that, there would be a new Congressional debate about whether Congress needs to approve those actions, or not. And Congressional Republicans, don’t seem to be interested in authorizing President Obama to walk his dog, yet give him authority to strike another country.

I think now the pressure is on Congressional Republicans to prove that the deal with Iran is a bad one. And see if they’re capable, especially their Neoconservatives, of speaking outside of the partisan talking points and actually show why no deal with Iran is better than this deal. And how they would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons if nothing none is done to stop them. This deal, isn’t about Iranian human rights violations and their support for terrorism. Which is well-known and obvious. But preventing the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear weapons power. The other sanctions dealing with their human rights abuses and support for terrorists, will always be in place until Iran corrects and changes their behavior.

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times: Nicholas Kristof: ‘Jimmy Carter, His Legacy & a Rabbit’

Posted on July 13, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Jimmy Carter

Source:The New York Times– President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) and his wife Roselyn.

“Jimmy Carter “may well have improved the lives of more people in more places over a longer period of time than any other recent president,” wrote NickKristof in 2015.

We owe Jimmy Carter an apology. He may well have done more to improve the lives of more people than any other recent president. One of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it.

Thus we managed to portray President Gerald Ford, a first-rate athlete, And we used a distraught rabbit to confirm the narrative of Carter as a lightweight cowed by anything that came along.

Now that Carter is 90 and has been an ex-president longer than anyone in history, it’s time to correct the record. He is anything but an empty suit. Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, at a baseball game this year.

John Bazemore/Associated Press He has a new memoir, out this week, recounting that his father was a segregationist. Yet Jimmy Carter says he was the only white man in his town who refused to join the White Citizens’ Council, and he fought to integrate his church. At one point, after a racist slur was posted on his door, he considered giving up and moving away…

Source:The New York Times

I believe, similar to George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman, the Jimmy Carter presidency, looks better in the history books, than it does when it was actually going on.

I’m not saying President Carter was a great president because of course he wasn’t at least when you consider the issues he had to deal with and how little success he had dealing with them. But he was a president, who was ahead of his time, similar to Richard Nixon, saw things happening in the future. Which is what all very intelligent people can do and knew that those challenges and issues needed to be addressed right away.

Jimmy Carter, is known as a great ex-president, which he certainly is, with his work in dealing with human rights and environmental issues and energy policy. But as he’s said before, a lot of the work that he’s done as an ex-president, he started it as President, but ran out of time and wasn’t able to finish the job as President. He not only wanted to get America off of foreign oil, but not be reliant on oil at all, or at least not as our sole main energy source. He did get and national energy policy out of Congress, that was reliant on renewable energy, including solar.

During a rough period in the Cold War, when Russia was trying to dominate and control Central Asia, that wasn’t part of the Soviet Union and invaded Afghanistan in 1979, President Carter, was talking about human rights and making human rights officially part of American foreign policy. The first American President to ever do that, saying that human rights aren’t just an America value, or only something owed to Americans, but something that the whole world deserved. He brought peace between the Jewish State of Israel and the largest Arab country in the world, in Egypt. Almost forty years later, Israel and Egypt are still at peace.

The criticism’s against President Carter, are obvious. The economy, was never in good shape under his watch. He had four years to address it and really didn’t do anything that could help make the economy healthy again. His policy prescription was wrong talking about balanced budgets, when he had high interest rates, high energy prices, high unemployment and needed to put people back to work instead. Not knowing the situation on the ground in Iran and knot knowing how unpopular the Shah of Iran was and talking about him like a great man. When in fact he was an authoritarian dictator, who locked people up secretly, simply for opposing his regime. Which I believe is one of the reasons for the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979-80. And essentially ruined his presidency.

And even though President Carter had a Democratic Congress, with large majorities in both the House and Senate, President Carter was a Southern New Democrat. The Bill Clinton of his generation, dealing with a Democratic Congress, that was moving away from the South and becoming heavily dependent on the North, as well as racial and ethnic minorities for support.

The Democratic Party, developing a large McGovernite social democratic New-Left wing that emerges in the late 1960s and grows throughout the 1970s. So I’m not not sure President Carter would’ve been able to deal with the economy effectively even if had the policies to do it.

President Carter, had his weakness’s. One of the best and most intelligent analysts when it comes to analyzing policies and problems. But one of the least effective when it came to addressing problems. And sometimes not being able to address problems at all. Like the economic malaise and the Great Deflation, high interest rates, plus high inflation, that wipes out whatever economic growth you might have. But he’s someone who was President during a time that perhaps the most skillful politician, with the best communication skills and principles, would’ve struggled to deal with effectively.

One of the differences between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, is that President Obama when times are tough, can also show people how things are good and getting better. President Carter, didn’t have that and didn’t have policies that made people feel better. But still, if you look at foreign policy, energy policy and how President Carter helped change the Democratic Party for New Democrats to be able to take over, he looks a lot better now, than he did thirty-five years ago.

Posted in Carter Presidency, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge- The High and The Mighty: The War on Drugs

Posted on July 13, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Milton Friedman

Source: Hoover Institution- Professor Milton Friedman

Source:Hoover Institution

I’ve made this point more times than I can count now and generally I’m pretty good with numbers, but when you try to prevent someone from doing something dangerous, or try to prevent someone from doing anything and say, “don’t do this, or else” and the, or else is something awful like jail, that person, especially if they think they can get away with it, or are addicted and don’t care and think the risk is worth it, is going to do what they want with themselves anyway. You don’t correct improper behavior, or dangerous behavior when just one person is involved, by saying don’t do this, or we’ll make things even worst for you then what you’re doing now and send you to jail.

Jail and prison, is worst for people than illegal narcotics. Because of the stress, the risks to people’s personal safety and even their lives. The slop that they have to eat, that is supposed to be food. All the down time and solitary that leads to human waste. I mean, I rather be a cocaine addict and be far gone from reality, then experience jail, or prison completely sober. What you want to do instead, is instead of making people’s lives even worst than they currently are, you encourage people to improve their behavior. Show them why they shouldn’t be taking any cocaine, meth, or heroin. Don’t criminalize things that have the same, or similar side-effects as alcohol. Which means legalizing marijuana.

One of the tragedies of the so-called War on Drugs, which again isn’t a real war, but its made criminals of people, who are only guilty for what they’ve done to themselves. We spend billions of dollars every year as taxpayers punishing people for what they’ve done to themselves. When what we could’ve been doing is actually helping people get off of those drugs and build their life into something that is positive and productive. Where they don’t want anything to do with cocaine, heroin, or meth. Imagine if we were doing this 45 years ago, instead of locking people up, because they like cocaine. So we can say we’re “tough on crime”, whatever the hell that means. How many lives would we of saved from the War on Drugs as a result?

Posted in Originals, Uncommon Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: Paula Zahn Now- Jane Fonda in 2005

Posted on July 11, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Jane Fonda

Source:The New Democrat– Hollywood Goddess and New-Left political activist Jane Fonda, talking to CNN’s Paula Zahn in 2005.

“JANE FONDA TALKS TO PAULA ZAHN ABOUT HER ANGUISH OVER VIETNAM, 2005 {33}”

Daily Motion_ Jane Fonda Talks To Paula Zahn

Source:Daily Motion– Larry King Live in 2005.

From Daily Motion

I think there really are two Jane Fonda’s: the great, sexy beautiful baby-faced adorable actress, who is arguably the greatest actress of her generation. With perhaps only Liz Taylor being better. And then there’s the New-Left political activist, that emerges on the American political scene in the late 1960s and is there throughout the 1970s. Who U.S. Military veterans see as The Devil. Who the New-Left/Far-Left in America, see as one of their heroes. Perhaps right there with Karl Marx and many others.

And I think it’s hard to cover both sides of Jane’s career in one post. But she’s made a huge mark in both careers that she’s had, I’m going to give it a shot.

It’s not being against the Vietnam War, that made Jane Fonda controversial. I mean, the country up until the early 1970s, was split on that issue. It’s still the worst war that America has ever been in. As far as all the pain, suffering and deaths and how it’s effected future president’s and Congress’s and how they go to war.

It’s how Jane was against this war that really sets her apart. And puts in the anti-war movement in America that makes it easy to portray her as anti-American, if not Un-American. When you accuse the President of the United States of being a war criminal and you take a picture with the enemy and you call Americans soldiers murderers, it’s easy to see how people who love America would hate you.

The positive side of Jane Fonda’s career: again, perhaps the best actress of her generation, ( The Silent Generation: Americans born in the late 1920s and 1930s, primarily )  I think only Liz Taylor would be better than Jane. And you look at Jane’s movies like Walk on The Wild Side, The Chase, The China Syndrome, some of the best movies ever and she had a great part and was great in all of them, its easy to see why she’s had such a great career. And inheriting Henry Fonda’s genes, doesn’t hurt either.

But as a political activist and I’ll go concentrate on the Vietnam War, perhaps some of her other activities, I probably agree with her on, she stands out as a real New-Left, or Far-Left radical, that has pissed off a lot of Americans. Who by-in large would probably like and love her a lot otherwise.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Jane Fonda, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments