Christian Science Monitor: Jessica Mendoza- 'What is ANTIFA and Does Its Rise Mean?'

Source: CSM- ANTIFA rally somewhere in Berkeley, California. Even though they would probably be a lot more comfortable in China or Cuba, with other Communists. Except that they wouldn't have the right to protest there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"The University of California, Berkeley, is gearing up for “Free Speech Week,” featuring 'alt-right' speakers. Also likely to turn out: antifa groups, whose appearance at neo-Nazi and white nationalist rallies has led to heated and sometimes nasty confrontations."

From CSM

"The anti-fascism-or Antifa-movement has been around for a century, but in the wake Donald Trump's election they've recently been garnering more attention. The increased profile has led to an increase in followers in the US who want to take fighting white nationalism into their own hands."

Source:CNN- ANTFA rally, perhaps in Berkeley, California.

From CNN

Jessica Mendoza at CMS, pretty sums up exactly what ANTIFA is. (Anti-Fascists Action) They're essentially a collection of far-leftists, Communists even, of course Socialists, and Anarchists. They're not the sons and daughters of the peace-loving hippies of the 1960s who were simply looking for their own way of life and tired of being told by their parents and others that this is how you should live and what it means to be a real American. Who finally decided to break away from the 1950s suburban dad works, mom stays home and raises the kids lifestyle. But instead wanted the freedom to be whoever they were and wanted to be even if that offended the cultural values of the older generations.

ANTIFA are more like the sons and daughters, grandchildren even  of Tom Hayden, Bill Ayers, Jayne Fonda, (when she wasn't acting professionally) Mario Savio, Abbie Hoffman, and many others. People who hated our capitalist private enterprise economic system, because they believed it was racist and left too many people in poverty. As well as our liberal democratic traditions that allowed people they disagreed with to speak out and allowed for right-wingers to organize. Who hated the American system so much that they felt the need to try to destroy it and even use violence to do it.

ANTIFA are not the Bernie Sanders-Jill Stein peace-loving Socialists of today who simply want to bring social democracy to America and combine it with our private enterprise system. But instead are people who again like the New-Left of the 1960s, who hate our capitalist private enterprise system, as well as our liberal democratic form of government, but hate racism and bigotry towards non-European-Americans, non-Christians, gays, women, so much that they'll literally by force even attempt to shut up right-wing groups.

Even right-wing speakers and thinkers who aren't necessarily bigots and don't hate non-European-Americans, people like Ben Shapiro who is a Jewish-American and proud of his heritage, but who does have homophobic views, but who isn't a racist. ANTIFA are people who claim to hate fascism and yet will use their free speech rights to try to physically prevent people they disagree with from using their free speech rights simply because they're offended by what right-wingers have to say.

I label ANTIFA as a collection of far-leftist and Far-Left groups, because that it what they are. They're a movement of illiberal (not liberal) political factions including Communists. People who are so diehard and hard-core with their political and cultural views and believe in them so strongly, that everyone else is not just wrong, but dangerous and offensive and therefor according to them don't have a right to speak and perhaps even live peacefully.

You could be a Center-Left Liberal or Progressive, or perhaps even a Far-Left Democratic Socialist, who doesn't believe in using violence to accomplish your political objectives and believe in free speech even for people you disagree with and you could get labeled by ANTIFA as a traitor and sellout to right-wing corporatists. To compare ANTIFA with Occupy Wall Street of 2011-12, would be inaccurate and perhaps even insulting. Because OWS of earlier this decade is the Bernie Sanders-Jill Stein social democratic movement of today. Who don't believe in using violence to accomplish their political objectives. ANTIFA instead are the violent anarchist wing of the Far-Left in America.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule: Liberal States Rights'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Real Time with The Real Bill Maher. LOL

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill takes a stand against the "outside agitators" who wants to interfere with California's progressive agenda."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Bill Maher is right about at least one thing that people on the Right including Conservatives, but people who are much further right than that and people who I call Neo-Confederates who believe that the wrong side won the American Civil War, who are Southern Nationalists, back in the day argued for what they call states rights. Which essentially means that the Southeast or Bible Belt knows what's best for them and dem damn Yankees in Washington need to but the hell out and mind their own damn business.

Back in the day the Democratic Party controlled most of the power in the country. The thing was those the Democratic Party wasn't really a progressive or conservative party.

They had a Far-Left people who would be called Socialists today the Henry Wallace wing of the party.

They had a progressive Center-Left with that Robert Kennedy represented.

They had a Center-Right that people like Lloyd Bentsen represented, who served in the Congress for a long time and was Mike Dukakis's vice presidential nominee in 1988.

But the Democratic Party also had a Far-Right. Neo-Confederarate Southern Nationalists, who again believe the wrong side won the American Civil War and that if European-Americans especially Anglo-Protestants can't treat African-Americans like slaves, they should at least be able to treat them like second-class citizens under law and not have to give them full-citizenship. Which is why we had a civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

I'm a what I at least call a liberal-federalist and as a true Liberal I'm not comfortable with large centralized authorities and establishments. One of the basic liberal values is decentralization of authority and spreading the power out and not comfortable with top-down management styles including from government. And that the basic role of the Federal Government is to protect the country from foreign invaders, as well as terrorists and criminals who operate in multiple states. As well as enforcing the U.S. Constitution.

That the states should be able to manage their own affairs as long as they are within the Constitution. Which means not having different laws, access and justice for different Americans. Which is why we have Federal civil rights laws. And most importantly that the power be with the people themselves so they can manage their own affairs as long as they aren't hurting innocent people.

So if California wants strict environmental laws even if those laws give them high energy prices, those laws are their business. If Texas wants private school choice and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize secular private schools, that's their business. Just as long as California, Texas, and every other state in the union are within the Constitution. That they don't pass laws that benefit one race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, over another. Or try to create their own military, currency, foreign policy, etc, anything else that would succeed their authority that should be handled by the Federal Government.

What Bill Maher was getting at with his impression of a Dixiecrat from back in the day,  (Dixiecrat-right wing Southern Democrat) was sort of what I was talking about earlier that the Federal Government, dem damn Yankees (as right wing Southerners would call people up North) should stay the hell out of the business of the Bible Belt states and let those states run their own affairs as they see fit. Even if that means having separate and unequal laws and access for European and African-Americans.

Now go up fifty years with the Republican Party which is now has a large faction for former Dixiecrats now Dixie Republicans and now has most of the governmental power in the country with the White House, complete control of Congress, 34 governorships and as solid majority of state legislatures. The Tea Party Nationalist wing of the Republican Party is no longer talking so much about federalism and states rights.

The Far-Right of the Republican Party with all of this power with controlling both the House, Senate, Justice Department, Supreme Court, now believe they can force every state and locality in the nation to govern like them. And force their political and cultural values on the rest of the country. States rights and federalism now to the Dixie wing of the Republican Party, means you can govern yourselves anyway you want, just as long as they approve of what you're doing.

If California wants strict environmental laws, the Trump Administration will challenge those laws in court and saying California doesn't have the authority to do this and environmental laws are for the Federal Government to decide. If Colorado wants legalize marijuana which they passed a few years ago, the Trump Administration will challenge that law in court and argue that marijuana is a Federal issue and not for the states to decide.

Sort of like someone arguing on the Right who is a so-called Religious-Conservative who says they believe in individual freedom. But what they really believe in is that people should have the freedom to live the way that Religious Conservatives approve of. But not necessarily have the freedom to make their own decisions. Or someone on the Far-Left who claims to be Pro-Choice. But what they really believe in is that people should have the right to make choices that the Far-Left approves of.

Federalism or states rights, is exactly that. What good is freedom if you can't make your own decisions? Just because the Federal Government doesn't believe in environmental laws, private school choice, marijuana legalization, and I could go down the line and if I didn't have a life maybe I would, but you get the idea, but just because the Feds might not believe in these things why should they be able to force their values on every other state in the nation.

The whole point of a Federal Republic is that when you have large diverse country which is what America certainly is what might work in one part of the country, might not be approved of or work in another part of the country. Which is why you have a Federal Government there to handle the national issues and leave the states and localities to deal with their state and local issues. Again, as long as all three levels of government are within their authority under the U.S. Constitution. Instead of Big Uncle Sammy getting to decide what everyone should think, how everyone should live, how everyone should govern, as if they're some big over-paternalistic Communist or something.

Real Time With Bill Maher: J. Edgar Hoover, Chelsea Manning & PC Colleges

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Tim Gunn and Bret Stephens.

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill and his guests – Bret Stephens, Fran Lebowitz, Salman Rushdie, and Tim Gunn – answer viewer questions after the show."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

As far as J Edgar Hoover: I don't know how I can talk about him without being accused of a homophobe or some leftist elitist or the Christian-Right because they still can't live with the fact that Edgar Hoover was gay and are still living in denial about it. So I might as well just jump into the discussion about talk about Edgar Hoover and his homosexuality.

To me Hoover represents to what would be faux heroes in America and people who live with bipolar political personalities.  In public Hoover was a hard-core cultural warrior Nationalist who stood up for everything that the nationalist tribalist Right stood for in America. English Protestant Christianity with this fundamentalist religious view of the world as far as who the real Americans are and tried to route out people that the Far-Right sees as the Un-Americans.

First it was Hoover, then it was Joe McCarthy, later Richard Nixon voters, followed by people would be identified as the Christian-Right in America by the late 1970s. Who are Far-Right religious voters who vote based on their religious beliefs and base their politics on their religious beliefs. Even if that interferes with a little sometimes annoying document called the U.S. Constitution. This is the political faction that Sarah Palin represents that voted for and overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump today. So this would be the public Edgar Hoover.

The private Hoover was the King of Queens. (Or is that the Queen of Queens) This openly homosexual man who you would think was the President of the Castro District in San Francisco. Who not only crossdressed but who would treat his boyfriends like they were his girlfriends. And would be treated like a girlfriend by his boyfriends. Crossdressed, spoke with a high feminine voice in private. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ( To quote Jerry Seinfeld ) The public Edgar Hoover was everything that the Far-Right loves. The private Hoover was someone who they believe represents almost everything they hate about America.

As far as Chelsea Manning: if we can have openly sexist and homophobic speakers who talk about Latino immigration as the browning of America (to quote Ann Coulter) who speaks at universities on a regular basis, I don't see why we can't have a transgender ex-Marine who fought for their country in Chelsea Manning's case speak at Harvard. Political correctness and fascism on campus and in America is put down a lot as it should and this blog has contributed to that.

But generally that comes from the Far-Left as far as people who hate anything that offends the Far-Left to the point they feel the need to not just shut up anything and anyone that offends them. But in some cases like with this so-called ANTIFA movement they'll physically attack people who offend them. Trying to shut up Chelsea Manning because she was convicted and served time in prison for releasing classified information and of course for being transgender, is political correctness and fascism from the Far-Right in America. The Sarah Palin/Donald Trump movement.

I just covered political correctness but I did it from the Far-Right. As the panel was saying college is not supposed to be a safe space, at least a safe space when it comes to ideas and politics. But a place to learn and grow, develop, hear things that you haven't heard before even if they offend you. If you want to be at a place where everyone looks, talks, and thinks like you, college is not the place for you. And instead perhaps just spend all of your time at coffee houses drinking lattes all day and learn about the world from your laptop and i-phone. Where people in their 30s might seem like old dinosaurs to you.

I was going to let that Fran Lebowitz comment go about the only real city in America in her view is New York and Chicago. But I don't think I should since Hillary Clinton is the news a lot recently and represents that elitist thinking that everything that is great in America is in New York. And the rest of of us are uneducated fools who don't know how the real world works. That kind of thinking is why Hillary Clinton wrote a book about why she lost the 2016 presidential election. Instead of being too busy to write a book other than maybe her daily diary, because she has an administration to run as President of the United States.

Those blue-collar Democrats who voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly in 2012 and 2008. Because Barack Obama even with his wine and cheese yuppie Democrat personality, could connect to average Joe and Jane voters in America. And didn't expect people to vote for him because of his last name and that he was a Democrat. Or they wanted to vote for the first African-American President of the United States. Hillary expect even blue-collar Democrats to vote for her, because she's Hillary Clinton and she wanted to be the first female President of the United States.

Turner Classic Movies: 'TCM Remembers Robert Osborne- 1932-2017'

Source: TCM- TCM film historian and host Robert Osborne. The face of TCM for 20 years.

Source:The Daily Review

"TCM remembers our original host, the author, journalist and beloved TV personality Robert Osborne, 1932-2017."

From TCM

How I do I talk about Robert Osborne, how do I talk about a man I don't personally know who wasn't an actor or a famous celebrity really for anyone who wasn't an entertainer or an entertainment historian and writer who works with people like Osborne who was of course not just a film and Hollywood historian, but one of the best and most knowledgeable of his generation, if not ever. Well, I guess I don't have to say I can talk about as fan of TCM and Classic Hollywood in general, but that wouldn't be giving me much credit. I'll talk about Robert Osborne as someone who loves Classic Hollywood as a blogger who blogs about Classic Hollywood from time to time. And a big reason is because of knowledgeable people and historians like Robert Osborne.

Robert Osborne is not the reason why I love and many other Americans perhaps especially on Google+ that has so many Classic Hollywood communities and communities about old movies, famous entertainers and TV. But he's one of the biggest reasons. Watching an old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie on TNT or USA ( to use as examples ). It's so much better, because instead of one movie ending with the credits and that movie directly being followed by the next movie.

What you get is a backstory from someone like Robert Osborne or Ben Mankiewicz who gives you inside details about the movie you just saw. Where it was shot and why it was shot there. Background about the cast, writers and directors involved and what it took to get those people to work on that project. The chemistry that the cast had with each other, as well as the people they worked for on the project. As well as little information about the people on the project as far as how it affected their career before and after. And then you get a little taste about a documentary about about actors, actresses, and other entertainers short documentary films about Old Hollywood after the last movie had just been completed and before the next movie shows up.

Robert Osborne did not get me into Classic Hollywood, at least by himself. But like I said earlier because of him and TCM watching and old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie everywhere else. It's more like reading a good book about a movie or  good documentary about a movie and then thinking I have to see that movie because its so interesting. Except you get that information for free. Robert Osborne gave his viewers a good book or documentary worth of information about the movie that you're about to watch in about three minutes. Because he was so knowledgeable about what you were about to see and doing it an interesting way.

Talking about the story without giving up the plot. Talking about the cast and again how they worked with each other and again how that film affected their careers and what they were doing before. I especially loved how Osborne talked about Hitchcock films and saying how good Cary Grant was with Alfred Hitchcock because they had similar taste in movies, humor, and women. That is what you got with Robert Osborne. The story of the film before you saw it and yet still wanting and seeing that film, because of how interesting he made it sound. And he is one of the best if not the best and will be surely missed.

NFL Films: Randy White- 'Top 10 Dallas Cowboys of All Time'

Source: NFL Films-  Randy White: The Dallas Cowboy Manster.

Source:The Daily Review

"Hall of Famer and Co-MVP of Super Bowl XII Randy White comes in at #10 on the list of Top 10 Cowboys of All Time."

From NFL Films

When you're talking about the best defensive tackles in NFL history, I believe there really only four you can consider for the best ever. And then argue about which one of those four is the best ever. Not necessarily in this order, but Joe Greene from the Pittsburgh Steelers. Bob Lilly from the Dallas Cowboys. Merlin Olsen from the Los Angeles Rams. And last and perhaps not least Randy White also from the Cowboys, the best defensive tackle of the 1980s at least and I would argue probably the best defensive tackle if not defensive lineman of the 1980s and the second half of the 1970s if not that entire decade.

That is how great of a football player Randy White was and I would have a pretty good idea growing up as a Redskins fan in the 1980s and seeing him play at least twice a year for about 7-8 years. The reason why the Doomsday Defense of the Cowboys was so good is because they didn't have to blitz to pass rush or stop the run. You had Ed Jones and Harvey Martin on the ends and Randy in the middle. Larry Cole was a very good DT as well. And you always had to double team Randy, (except for Russ Grimm with the Redskins) which freed up either Ed Jones or Harvey Martin on the outside, or Larry Cole as the other DT.

Randy White was 6'4 but he only weighed 260-265 pounds and he might have even beefed up to that once Tom Landry finally figured out that Manster wasn't a linebacker but a defensive lineman. And 260-265 for a defensive tackle in the 1980s and would've been small even back then. Especially going up against the Redskins and the big Chicago Bears offensive lines in the 1980s. But he was so strong and quick. He could get into the opponents backfield before the offensive lineman even moved. Or just knock the lineman out-of-the-way.

He reminds me of Dick Butkus (Chicago Bears LB) as far as how quick, strong, athletic, and aggressive he was. He didn't tackle his opponents, but he pounded them into the ground like pro wrestlers did. But his slams on opponents were real. Randy White was the best Cowboy defensive player of the 1970s and it would be between Randy and Bob Lilly as far as greatest Cowboy defender of all time. The nickname Manster that Randy picked up (half man, half monster) he was exactly that. Because football was like war for him and the goal seemed to be for him to destroy his opponents and not just win the game. Because of his strength, athletic ability, and quickness he's still one of the best defensive players ever.

NFL Films: Bob Ryan- 'How The Dallas Cowboys Became Americas Team'

Source: NFL Films- NFL Films, labeling the Dallas Cowboys America's Team, in the 1970s.

SourceThe Daily Review

"The Timeline details just how exactly the Dallas Cowboys became known as "America's Team."

From NFL Films

At risk of stating the obvious: in a country over 200 million people back in the 1970s and in a major sports league like the NFL with 26 franchises by the time the NFL expanded to Tampa and Seattle in 1976, it's hard to accurately say there was one America's team in the NFL. America is not Jamaica or Iceland, we're a huge country with a huge population.

Granted, the Dallas Cowboys were probably the most popular team in the NFL in the 1970s and a lot of that I believe had to do with their Hollywood pop culture appeal. Where a lot of their players looked like professional celebrities and entertainers perhaps as much or more as they looked like professional football players. But as one guy in this video said a lot of the promotion that was about the Cowboys in putting together the America's Team film that was about the Cowboys was based on lies.

The Pittsburgh Steelers were the team of the 1970s in the NFL and I would argue the team of pro sports in that decade. They won 4-6 Super Bowls from 1974-79. Had never been done before and hasn't been done since and perhaps never will be done again with all the parity in the league today. And if you just look at personal and the fact that the Oakland Raiders are also in the AFC along with the Steelers and had to play the Steelers three times in the AFC Championship just to get to the Super Bowl and lost 2-3 of those games, you could certainly argue that the Oakland Raiders were just as good as the Cowboys in the 1970s.

Sure, the Cowboys won 2 Super Bowls and the Raiders only 1. And the Cowboys won five conference championships and the Raiders only 1. But who was the other great NFC franchise in the 1970s? The Minnesota Vikings who lost three Super Bowls? The Los Angeles Rams who only won one conference championship? The Rams, Vikings, and Redskins, were pretty good in the 1970s. But the Cowboys were the only great NFC team in the decade. Which is one reason why they won 5 NFC Championship's. The Steelers had the Raiders and Dolphins that they had to worry about every year and probably beat in the AFC Playoffs just to get to the Super Bowl.

The Dallas Cowboys on paper were probably just as good or about as good as the Pittsburgh Steelers and you could argue they had a better team in 1978 than the Steelers and should have won Super Bowl 13, which I believe is still the best Super Bowl ever. But they didn't and to be the best, you have to beat the best and be your best when it counts the most. Like not dropping TD passes when you're wide-open in the end zone. Being the most popular team and being America's Team are two different things. Which is why Dallas Cowboys came up short in the 1970s.

Real Time With Bill Maher: New Rule: 'What if Barack Obama Said It?'

Source: Real Time- Bill Maher, imaging what the Republican Party would look like, under a President Barack Obama. LOL

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill imagines how Republicans would react if Barack Obama exhibited the same crude behavior as Donald Trump – with a little help from Obama impersonator Reggie Brown."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Just too at least sound serious for a minute: The reasons why the Republican Party are holding Donald Trump to a lower standard and perhaps low standard is not the right term and no standard at all would be more accurate, is because they weren't expecting Donald Trump to be President.

The GOP wasn't expecting to have to deal with President Trump's narcissism, inexperience, immaturity, irresponsibility, lack of intelligence (at least when it comes to public affairs) , etc, and I could go on but it's Saturday and I don't want to spend my whole day on this. But having to deal with all of Donald Trump's personal weaknesses like they were producers of a so-called reality TV show having to deal with an inexperienced, irresponsible cast that believes the whole world revolves around them and they are now the latest hot pop culture celebrity.

The GOP was expecting to Hillary Clinton to not only be the next President right now, but for her to defeat Donald Trump going away not just in the popular vote, but in the Electoral College as well. And that the GOP would hold the House, but perhaps Democrats would win back the Senate. And that the GOP would be spending the next two years trying to obstruct and investigate the Clinton Administration, but not having to actually govern themselves.

The other reason except for the Russia investigation where there's a consensus both in the House and Senate with both parties, that this is a real investigation and that Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller should be investigating this and that President Trump shouldn't be able to fire Bob Mueller simply simply because he might be investigating not just the 2016 Trump Campaign but the White House as well, is because they're now in bed with Donald Trump and his administration politically. I realize the Washington GOP and Donald Trump are not natural bedmates. Sort of like a top model trying to sleep with a serial killer with hair all over his back and chest who belches as a form of communication.

But for the Republican Party to accomplish anything politically and on policy in 2017-18 before the Congressional mid-terms, they're going to need a functioning Trump White House and administration to accomplish those things. That is at least popular enough for them pass their agenda. Both the GOP Congress and the Trump Administration, have similar policy agendas and are close enough to work together. For the GOP to at least hold the House and have no real risk of losing the Senate next year, they're going to have to govern and govern successfully. And they're going to have to work with the Trump White House to do that.

I mean if the House GOP and the Senate GOP abandons President Donald Trump and says they can't work with the White House for laundry's list worth of reasons and I've already mentioned several of them and being a potential puppet that was bought by President Vladimir Putin and Russia, would be another one and instead tries to work with House Democrats and Senate Democrats on issues like health care, infrastructure, tax reform, and tells the White House if President Donald Trump that if he vetoes their legislation they'll just override his vetoes with help of House Democrats and Senate Democrats, because now the House and Senate have these huge majorities on their legislation, because everything they're doing now has bipartisan support, what incentive would Trump voters and the Tea Party have to vote for Congressional Republican and candidates next year? Republicans would be labeled as RINOS. (Republicans in name only)

The Republican Party is now in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. They're damned if they stick with Trump (sounds like a campaign sticker) because if he goes down and has no popularity that he can use to govern and Americans aren't listening to him, Republicans won't be able to pass anything meaningful out of Congress, at least on their own. And as a result will depress their base and ignite the Democratic base and at the very least lose the House next year and might lose north of 40 seats as well. And perhaps lose the Senate as well.

If the GOP sticks with Trump and his popularity continues to slides or even holds between 33-38%, but because of his bad behavior and what comes out of the Russian investigation, that the Republican Congress is also divided and can't work with each other and Congressional Democrats have no political incentive to work with Republicans, because they want to at least win back the House in 2018, the Congressional GOP will go down and we'll have a new Congress in 2019 with Democrats controlling at least the House.

I agree with Bill Maher about the Republican hypocrisy when it comes to Donald Trump.

Had Barack Obama said that John McCain a Vietnam POW wasn't a war hero, they would've called him an agent of the Communist Party of Vietnam. And perhaps the Birthers would then say that Barack Obama is from Vietnam instead of Kenya.

Had Barack said that he openly grabbed women's pussies in public, Sean Hannity and many others on the Tea Party right would have said that Barack belongs in prison and called him a serial rapist from the ghetto or someplace.

If President Obama had taken as much time off for vacation at this point in his administration, the Tea Party and others would have labeled President Obama as a lazy bum from the hood who wasn't raised right. And I could go on but I'll spare you.

And I'm not trying to excuse the GOP's double standard for Donald Trump, because their hypocrisy is obvious and disgusting. And just trying to explain it in political terms and what they believe they can achieve with a Donald Trump in the White House and how bad a hand they have with him. And they've decided that sticking with him at all costs is the best decision they can make right now.

NFL Films: Donald Trump- 'Decline of The NFL & The Rise of The USFL'

Source: NFL Films- Donald Trump, trying to get into the NFL through the USFL. 

Source:The Daily View

"In 1984 with the NFL in decline, Donald Trump begin to form a rival football league, the USFL.

From NFL Films

There was a time in the 1980s when Donald Trump wanted to be an NFL owner. He could see the popularity and growth of the National Football League which by that time had become the most popular professional sports league in America, with the most popular championship in the Super Bowl. And The Donald or perhaps Big Don (does anyone call Donald Trump Don) decided he wanted a piece of that action.

The problem that Mr. Trump had which was great for the NFL, is that the New York Giants, already had a solid ownership and management group. Same thing with the New York Jets, the Philadelphia Eagles, so The Donald was shut out of his own territory as far as having any opportunity to own and run his own NFL franchise. But this was a great thing for the NFL, because Big Don was a big reason why the USFL failed.

Again to Don’s credit he saw the growth potential of the upstart United States Football League that kickoff in 1983. And the USFL wanted a franchise in the New York market and they were a spring league and played their games in the spring and summer. When the Giants and Jets weren’t playing and that meant that Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, or Shea Stadium in Queens over on Long Island, would both be available in the spring and summer as far as not having a pro football franchise occupying it during that time of year.

And the potential New Jersey USFL franchise didn’t have an owner and management group yet and that is how Don became part of the USFL. Because he had the money and to a certain extent (as small as that might be) the vision for how the USFL could succeed.

Originally the USFL had the right vision. Playing in the spring and summer when the NFL was in their offseason. Drafting and singing high quality NFL caliber players. Guys like Reggie White, Bobby Hebert, Gary Clark, Jim Kelly, Herschel Walker and many others. They had the money as far as investors in the USFL. They were playing exclusively in major media markets and big cities. Including markets that weren’t currently occupied by the NFL. Jacksonville, Orlando, Memphis, San Antonio, Phoenix, Portland, and Oakland.

But a big problem that they had is that they listened too much to Donald Trump and he owning and running the New Jersey Generals. They expanded too fast having like 18 franchises by 1985 and probably their worst mistake and perhaps the death penalty of the USFL, was deciding to move from the spring and summer which is what they did from 1983-85, to trying to go right up against the NFL and try to play their games in the fall of 1986.

One of the best decisions that at the time NFL Commissioner Pete Roselle and the broader NFL made in 1983 and for the rest of the 1980s and ever since, was not getting involved with Donald Trump. Which is how The Donald ends up as part of the failed USFL, instead of becoming part of the NFL and making that league weaker or perhaps ruining a quality franchise, because of how much he would have tried to make his club and the NFL about him. Instead of what was the best thing for his club and the NFL.

Because outside of Don's beautiful family and I give him credit for how his kids turned out, the only thing that Don cares about when it comes to business is The Donald. If it was popular for Don’s club to fail as far as their record, but it would have been profitable for Don, that is how he would have run an NFL franchise. And the NFL doesn’t need another owner like that.

David Brin: 'Greed, Oligarchy & Marx'

Source: David Brin- The case for greed.

Source:The Daily View

"Earlier we looked at electoral post-mortems by some on the Right. And last time, we scrutinized the whole range of Electoral College possibilities, in case there turn out to be forty+ republican electors who are simultaneously patriotic, moral and sane... which these fellows deem to be highly unlikely.

Only now let’s do a sudden veer! Taking you into an unexpected direction by citing a name you thought relegated to the dustbin of history. It seems likely that, during the centennial year of his greatest victory, we'll be hearing more of him."

Read more from David Brin

"In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.

An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979."

From Safvio

Source:Salvio- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, making the case for greed, on The Phil Donahue Show in 1979.

I’m going to quote Milton Friedman here in his 1979 interview on the Phil Donahue Show that you can see here as well. But Phil asked Professor Friedman essentially, what is greed and tried to explain why he believed greed was a bad thing. With Milton replying by saying: “What is greed? Do you think China, Japan, Russia and Europe don’t run on greed? Do you believe we as Americans aren’t greedy?” And he jokingly said which got a laugh from the audience: “it’s only the other guy whose greedy.” I would’ve added while everyone else is selfless.

But Milton’s point there was perfect. Greed according to Webster’s: “is a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.” Which could cover a whole lot of territory. I mean all we really only need to be able to move around, have enough food, a place to stay, security and health care, in order to survive and keep living.

I’m not making the case for excess and for people to make money off  of others in an unfair manner by essentially stealing what others worked for to collect for themselves. I’m saying that greed in of itself is not a bad thing and when managed properly is a very effective and necessary tool to have a strong economy where economic freedom is available for others. Because you have a society where everyone is incentivized to get educated, work hard, be very productive and then yes collect the fruits of their labor. Because government isn’t taxing people to excess and being greedy with other people’s money. Even if they want to help the less-fortunate. But instead everyone has the opportunity to live well and be successful. To be able to take care of themselves economically and create those opportunities for their kids as well.

What we shouldn’t be doing from the Far-Left is to say that rich people have a lot of money and the poor and the lower middle class (Donald Trump voters) are struggling just to keep their jobs and pay their bills. So the answer here to take heavily from the rich and have government take care of everyone else. Which is what Phil Donahue advocated for in the 1970s and 1980s and what Senator Bernie Sanders and other Democratic Socialists, advocate today. Because then you would create an economy where no one is wealthy and no one can be greedy, because everyone is poor. Unless they have a sweet job with the central government. Because now you are punishing success and wealth and subsidizing poverty. With people thinking they can just live off of government. But no one left to pay those bills.

Again, greed by itself is not a bad thing. Like anything else when there’s too much of freed when it goes uncheck, when power becomes unbalanced and absolute with one group of people with no checks and balances, is when greed becomes a problem. When you allow people to not only get real wealthy, which by itself is not a problem, but then when you let them essentially write off all of their tax burden and stick the middle class with the taxes for the rich, is when greed becomes bad. As much as Gordon Gecko believes greed is good. (Great Wall Street 1987 line) Greed is good, but so is water, but with too much water you can drown and with too much greed you could drown the economy leaving very little opportunity for anyone who isn’t real rich which will be most of the population.

I’m not a Socialist, especially not a Marxist and I’m not an Randian (named for Ayn Rand) When it comes to economics. But a Liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense (the real sense of liberal) who believes in individual freedom economic and personal, but for everyone. That yes you want wealthy people and you want an upper class. But not just for the privileged few, but for a lot of the country. With a strong middle class that isn’t lower, but able to not just pay their bills, but to  live in a nice home, put their kids through college, put money away, health insurance for their whole family, retirement security, even be able to take a nice vacation with the money to finance that.

And instead of a country with lot of poor people and people one pay check and a lost job away from poverty, with very few rich people, you instead reverse that. With a country that has a strong middle class with people able to move up even from that, yes wealthy people but more wealthy people. And instead very few poor people with them having the ability to move up as well. With things like education, job training, infrastructure and economic development. You don’t get there by punishing wealth and subsidizing poverty. But instead encouraging wealth and subsidizing people and empowering people who need it to climb the economic ladder. So they too can be part of a strong middle class and ever do better than and become very rich themselves

NFL Films: Tom Landry- 'Cowboys & America's Coach'

Source: NFL Films- Tom Landry and his Dallas Cowboys, perhaps in 1982-83, when they're playing the Redskins.

Source:The Daily View

"Tom Landry was the first coach of the Dallas Cowboys and an important part of them becoming America's team."

From NFL Films

I know I’m a Redskins fan, but I’ve always hated the term America’s Team and not just because it’s been associated with the Dallas Cowboys. I would hate that term if it were associated with the New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles as well. Actually, I would hate it if it were associated with any team in the NFL. Why, because it assumes that America is so small that we only have one team. The New York Yankees are great in Major League Baseball, because of the success that they’ve had and the fact that they represent New York City and people there like to refer to New York as the big great city of America as if we only have one. Tom Landry didn’t built America’s Team. He built the Dallas Cowboys and made them the great franchise that they are today.

When you look at Tom Landry, you need to think about head coaches and executives like Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, because he’s in the same class as all of those guys as far as the success he had over a twenty-year period. From 1966-85, the Dallas Cowboys had 20 consecutive winning seasons. Think about that for a moment: twenty straight seasons of winning more games than you lose. And here’s another record, 19 playoff appearances in those 20 seasons. Two records that will probably never be passed, but the New England Patriots under Bill Belichick could come close. This is also before free agency and where you had to build your team through the draft and trades. And finding player that other teams didn’t want that could fit for you.

How many other head coaches did you know that could run both the offense and defense for their teams, or did that? Don Shula, Bill Parcells, Chuck Noll, Jimmy Johnson , were smart enough to do that as well and all had defensive backgrounds, but tended to leave both their offense and defense to their coordinators. Landry ran his own offense even though he was a defensive head coach and a brilliant defensive mind, but put together both the offensive and defensive game plans and systems together for his team each week. He was a mastermind when it came to football as well as personal and who to get the best out of all his players. I don’t believe we’ve seen a head coach as smart as Tom Landry, other than perhaps Bill Walsh since.

The Cowboys of the 1970s were labeled America’s team, because of the success that they had and winning five conference championships, 2 Super Bowls and 9 divisional titles in that decade. As well as the popularity of their uniforms, merchandise and cheerleaders. But whether you believe the Cowboys were ever America’s Team or not and I definitely don’t and have already made that case, Tom Landry as well as Tex Schramm the President of the Dallas Cowboys with Tom Landry, deserve all the credit for that. For putting those teams together and having the success that they had. And that is the legacy of Tom Landry and what he gave the Cowboys and the NFL.

CNN: Inside Politics- 'President Obama and President Elect Trump React To Fidel Castro's Death'

Source: CNN- Fidel Castro: Communist Dictator of the Communist Republic of Cuba.

Source:The Daily View

"Obama, Trump react to the passing of Fidel Castro, but their reactions shines a light on the differing views of the future of U.S.-Cuba relations."

From CNN

I’m not going to say I’m surprised that President Obama didn’t hit Fidel Castro harder and point out President Castro’s ruthless authoritarianism and dictatorial rule over Cuba for the almost fifty-years that he was in power there. Because President Obama has gone out-of-his-way many times to appease the Far-Left in America who at the very least respect and admire Fidel Castro. They don’t see communism as a bad thing and instead see it as misunderstood or misapplied in many countries. But when you’re down to your last three months as President of the United States and you’re never going to run for office again, now might be the time to say,:“the hell with what my fringe believes and says. I’m going to say what I think and just speak the truth. Damn who might it offend.” But that is not Barack Obama, at least when it comes to his own base.

Donald Trump on the other hand, who I rarely agree with on anything and voted against him and for Hillary Clinton, nailed it. When he called Fidel a brutal dictator. The Castro Regime has locked up thousands if not millions of Cubans simply for speaking out against the Castro Regime, the Cuban Communist State. And with their Marxist takeover of the Cuban economy, they’ve imprisoned millions of Cubans in jail and poverty, because government’s can’t run economy well on their own, because of how inefficient and unproductive state-run industries are. When democracy and capitalism, came to Central America, the Caribbean and South America, in the 1990s Cuba was left as the only Marxist state in the America’s. Thanks to one man, Fidel Castro.

What President Obama could’ve done was give a strong statement about how horrible Fidel Castro was. While at the same time speaking to the Cuban people directly and talking about their courage and saying now they have an opportunity to move past Castro Communism and join the civilized developed world and have a real relationship with America that could lead to prosperity in Cuba. Criticize Fidel while at the same time praising the Cuban people. Because Fidel Castro at least since the end of the Cold War when Russia was no longer able to subsidize the Castro Regime, hasn’t been very popular in his own country. This was aa missed opportunity for President Obama.

CSPAN: Professor James Madison- 'Lectures in History: Ku Klux Klan in 1920s America'

Source:CSPAN- From a lecture about the Ku Klux Klan and 1920s America.

Source:The Daily View 

Source:CSPAN- Indiana University Professor James Madison.

"Preview - Full Program Airs October 12, 2013 at 8pm and October 13, 2013 at 12am & 1pm ET - For More Information:CSPAN."

From CSPAN

Source:The History Channel- A KKK rally, perhaps in the 1960s.

From The History Channel: "The Ku Klux Klan: A Secret History." Originally from The History Channel, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

I’m not writing this to link Donald Trump and his presidential campaign with the KKK. Mr. Trump a man who I don’t like and don’t have much if any respect for other than how he raised his family and loves his children and raise successful kids, but ran a presidential campaign in a way that I hate to the point that he helped to make right-wing nationalism and bigotry, somewhat mainstream. Even though most Americans hate bigotry whether it comes from the Far-Right, or Far-Left, but I don’t see this man as a racist.

But a real percentage of Mr. Trump's supporters whether we’re talking about 5-10% of them, more or less, are racists and bigots towards all non-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Caucasians and even women of all backgrounds, are racists and bigots and even terrorists. Or in David Duke’s case an ex-terrorist with the KKK.

If there’s any good thing about a Donald Trump presidency, is that we’ll get to learn more about the Alt-Right which is a hip way of describing the nationalist Caucasian Far-Right in America, including the KKK. An organization that believes America belongs to Anglo-Saxon Protestant Europeans, even though their ancestors kidnapped millions of Africans hundreds of years ago to use them as slaves in America.

And the Alt-Right see non-Protestants and people with dark skin, as invaders and Un-American and people who’ve invaded their country. And believe they’re under attack by minorities even Caucasians who aren’t Protestant and Anglo: like Jews, Italians and Slavs and believe they have the right to kill these people.

Some people might say there isn’t any real definition of terrorism, that is something that you know when you see it, like pornography that you know it when you see it. Perhaps the only thing that terrorism and pornography have in common. But actually that is not true, because an act  of terrorism is the intentional destruction and murder of a mass group of people. Setting off a bomb in a public space knowing that if your bomb goes off it will hurt and probably kill a lot of people.

We see that type of terrorism all the time in the Middle East. Especially in Israel, but now in Iraq and Syria as well. The Irish Republican Army, was an Irish-Nationalist terrorist group that believe in uniting North Ireland which is still part of Britain, with the Irish Republic in the South. And they murdered thousands if not millions of English non-nationalist Irish who oppose uniting both Ireland’s.

That is what the Ku Klux Klan is about except their terrorism is about bigotry. Racial, ethnic and religious hatred, of non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And like with ISIS and other so-called Islamic terrorist groups, they self-define their activities under  a religion which is Protestant-Christianity. Except like with ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups, their terrorism has nothing to do with the religion they claim to represent.

There’s nothing Christian about killing people simply because of their race, ethnicity or religion. That is why the FBI has essentially destroyed the KKK almost by themselves, at least their military wing. Because the KKK is responsible for the murders of thousands if not millions of African, Jewish and other Americans, who come from a different racial, ethnic and religious background as the KKK.

The KKK is the oldest as most successful terrorist organization in the United States as far as the number of murders and other acts of terrorism that they’re responsible for. And they’ve let to other European-American terrorist organizations like the Aryan Nation, Neo-Nazis and other Alt-Right groups. The Black Panthers, the Communist Party and other Far-Left groups have nothing on the KKK when it comes to hate, murder and terrorism.

The KKK is responsible for more murders and terrorism than ISIS simply because the KKK has been around a lot longer. If ISIS is still in business a hundred years from now, that could change. And Americans need to know this if the Trump Administration is going to have any real connections with Alt-Right groups in the future.

Tom Cochrane: 'Life is a Highway'

Source:Tom Cochrane- Life is a highway.

Source:The Daily View

"Music video by Tom Cochrane performing Life Is A Highway."

From Tom Cochrane

“Life is a highway, I want to ride it all night long!" Tom Cochrane is really on to something with those lyrics. To use a cliche: “life is a marathon and not a sprint.” Meaning you’re going to around a long time, you might as well enjoy it and not try to accomplish everything at once, or let one setback and negative thing destroy you. So you should make out of life as much as you can and live your own life instead of trying to live someone else’s, or trying to live like someone else. Your favorite celebrity (if you have to have one) should be just that. The famous person you like and admire most.

But remember your idols have their lives and you have yours. And not everything they do in how they live their life will work for you. And in many cases work against you and get you into trouble.

So we should all be ourselves and be the person we can be and make ourselves happy, but not try to be something we’re not simply because we think that would make us cool or awesome or whatever, at that time.