Gil Troy: 'Moynihan's Moment- Daniel P. Moynihan's Fight Against Zionism is Racism'

Source:Gil Troy- talking about Daniel P. Moynihan.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Moynihan's Moment tells the previously untold story of America's fight--led by legendary statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan--against the 1975 UN "Zionism is racism" resolution. Written by leading historian, Professor Gil Troy, and published by Oxford University Press, Moynihan's Moment examines the shocking events that led to the drafting of the resolution, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's heroic efforts to prevent its passage, the public outrage it caused, and the effects it had--and continues to have--on the UN, US-Israel relations, and world opinion. Moynihan's Moment captures a pivotal, historic episode on the international political stage, when Americans stood up to defend Israel, democracy, and decency." 

From Gil Troy

I've never understood the New-Left's hatred of Israel and perhaps the Jewish community in America in general. Socialists are supposed to be for the underdog and looking after their well-being and even using government to do that. Who is the biggest underdog at least in the Middle East if not the world? It would be Jews, of course. An ethnic group that has at most ten-million members in and outside of Israel in the Mideast, in a region of three-hundred and fifty-million people. (Give or take) Israel, is literally surrounded by enemies once you get past Western Europe and into the Mideast.

And other than Egypt and Jordan they all hate Israel and would like to see the Jewish State be destroyed. Yet according to the Far-Left Marxist dictators are really cool and simply misunderstood hipsters who deserve our compassion. Even if they've murdered millions of people.  And according to the New-Left and Libertarian-Right, the Jews represent the real evil in the world. Even though they've been murdered by Marxists. And gays, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities in these Slavic countries have been murdered by Marxists regimes as well.

When the New-Left in America and the Libertarian-Right, go against Jewish-Americans and Israel, they're on the same team as Marxists, Baathists, Islamists and other authoritarians in the world. Who hate Jews, because they're Jewish and believe that Jews aren't entitled to their own homeland, if not lives in the world. They're in the same camp as the German Nazis who murdered millions of Jews in World War II and German Nazis who've murdered Jews and African-Americans in America. And the same thing as the KKK.

That is who the New-Left and Libertarian-Right are in bed with when it comes to their hatred towards Jews and Israel. If you want to support underdogs, sure! Palestine is a good place to start, because they're outnumbered, out-gunned and out-classed by the Israelis. And Palestinians by in large are good people. But how about Israel which is a developed country and democracy that is surrounded by people who hate them. That is what the Jews have faced in Europe, America and even their homeland in Israel and yet they're still her and doing well against horrible odds.

That is what Pat Moynihan stood up against at the United Nations. And organization that in the 1970s was in the third world Marxist dictator camp. Who saw Jews as the real racists in the world and stood up for every Far-Left rebellion that was trying to overthrow liberal democratic government's and establish their Marxism in their country. Instead of standing up for real freedom fighters who were actually fighting for their own freedom along with their own survival. The Jewish State of Israel, has been in a seventy-year struggle for their own survival. Against hundreds of millions of Arabs who hate them and don't believe they have a right to even exist.

If you want to fight for underdogs, how about first fighting for underdogs! I know, crazy concept, but if you say you're in favor of something you can at least understand what that is and what that means and then stand by it. But also fight for the good underdogs. People who fight for freedom and against racism. Not people who fight for Islamism, Marxism, or any other authoritarian philosophy. Whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. Stand up for freedom fighters who fight for freedom and stand for equality and equal rights. Not fascists who want to force their own warped ideology on an entire country.

Slate: Josh Voorhees- 'It's Official: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump'

Source:Slate Magazine- Tea Party Activist Sarah Palin.

Source:The Daily Review 

"And so ends the speculation about the “major” endorsement that Donald Trump has been teasing since this weekend, via the New York Times:

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, will endorse Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, officials with his campaign confirmed. The endorsement provides Mr. Trump with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses. “I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Ms. Palin said in a statement provided by his campaign.

Palin is not nearly the political sensation she once was but her endorsement is nonetheless significant, particularly in a GOP race that continues to be shaped by anti-establishment anger. She’s placed similar high-profile bets correctly in the past—including supporting Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in their respective Senate bids—and has a lengthy fundraising list. Her endorsement will also provide Trump with a ready-made shield in the face of the Republican-In-Name-Only criticism that Cruz is currently lobbing his way, and could give him a boost in Iowa, where Trump and Cruz are battling it out for victory in the first nominating contest of 2016."  

From Slate Magazine 

"COMMENT And so ends the speculation about the “major” endorsement that Donald Trump has been teasing since this weekend, via the New York Times:" 

Source:Slate Magazine- Sarah Palin and Donald Trump announcing their latest reality TV venture.

From Slate Magazine

I think the only thing that could make the Sarah Palin endorsement of Donald Trump any better is for The Donald, if he goes on to win the GOP nomination for president to nominate Governor Palin as his vice presidential nominee. They wouldn't bother having to raise any more money themselves at that point, because they could go on Saturday Night Live every week and play themselves. And give the comedians who normally play The Donald and The Hockey Mom, a few months much deserved vacation. Perhaps Tina Fey and the guy who plays The Donald, could come in and do post-Donald-Hockey Mom commentary about their performance on SNL. Now can The Donald get Michele Bachmann out of the mental hospital long enough, or prison, to endorse him for president as well?

I know Sarah Palin is no genius and by the way Alaska is not a good place for sunbathing in January either. For anyone who loves obvious comments and if you do please seek help, or don't talk to me. But Sarah is endorsing a man who kept Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation in business in the 2000s. Who at least in the past has been very pro-choice and not just on abortion, but gambling, medical marijuana and I'm sure a whole bunch of other social issues. Who once supported single payer health insurance reform. Who said in the summer of 2004 that the American economy does better under Democrats. Back when The Donald actually spoke the truth from time to time. And this is the guy whose supposed to lead the next conservative revolution.

Is The Donald a grassroots Conservative, or is he a Democratic Socialist who would probably make a good running mate for Bernie Sanders. With The Donald making the case that American business's would do well under socialism, because The Donald is a Socialist and a very wealthy businessman. By the way, is Sarah Palin a grassroots Conservative, or a political satirist who knows less about politics and current affairs than Hawaiians know about ice fishing in Nova Scotia. Who is less qualified to run any government than your average mailman is to give you a much needed lifesaving heart transplant. If I'm Ted Cruz right now, I'm actually happy about this. Because now Donald Trump and his marijuana high supporters can't say that Ted is the brain-dead nut in the race. Because Sarah Palin didn't endorse him.

James Patterson: Freedom is Not Enough: The Moynihan Report

Source:Amazon-

Source:The New Democrat

What I take from Freedom is Not Enough from the James Patterson book is that freedom is not free. Unless you have the skills to get yourself the job that earns you the income to live as a free person and be free from poverty and government dependence, then you’re not free. Sure! You have the right to vote, the right to assemble, speak, practice your faith, or not practice any faith, the right to self-defense and everything else in the Bill of Rights and privacy. But you don’t have economic freedom and the right to self-determination. Because your lifestyle and well-being is either partially, or completely dependent on what government will give you through public assistance.

Conservatives like to argue that what people in poverty need is freedom. That government should get-out-of-the-way and let the so-called free market take it’s course. But how is someone who didn’t even finish high school who has a couple of kids, maybe three kids and doesn’t have the education to get themselves a good job that brings her and generally we’re talking about mothers when it comes to single-parents, but not all cases. But how are single-parents under these circumstances suppose to live in freedom. They’re not going to be able to in many cases to be able to get a good job, because they’re under educated, to say the least. They obviously can’t afford to go to college on their own and they don’t even have a high school diploma. And even if they can go back to school, they need someone to watch their kids.

So for freedom to be real for anyone they have the skills that gains them their freedom. It starts with a good education that gives them the skills to get themselves a good job. Then they have to get a good job that they’re qualified for. Once they accomplish those things now they have the skills that they need to live in freedom. Before that they’re not free, but dependents on the state. Having to have public assistance and will probably need private charity as well in order to just barely get by. A roof over their head, the bare-minimum as far as food for themselves and their kids and everything else. Conservatives are right, freedom is not free. It’s something that you have to earn and then work to keep so you don’t end up on Unemployment Insurance or something.

So to move people from poverty into the middle class and better, they need the opportunity to do that for themselves. They need to be able to finish and further their education, child care for their kids if they have them, to go along with the current public assistance they’re receiving. And it shouldn’t be suggested that they improve their own lives, but instead required. Along with making sure their kids are going to and staying in school and learning. As well as getting their education so they don’t end up in the same economic status when they’re adults. Again freedom is not free, you have to earn it and government should require everyone on public assistance to work for their own freedom. And then give them the opportunities to do that. Otherwise people in poverty will never be free.

The New Republic: Hanif Willis-Abdurraqif: America’s Most Electable Fictional Presidents

Source:The New Republic-

Source:The Daily Review

Hey, what do you know. The New Republic with an article not only worth sharing, but commenting on and blogging about all in one. Maybe they’re partially only dead and when they’re finally sold and hopefully bought by people who know what they’re doing this time and who aren’t to the left of Bernie Sanders they may come back to life. And return as a great Center-Left liberal magazine that they use to be. And stop doing their impersonation of Salon. And leave socialism and political correctness for Socialists and political correctness warriors. Not people who call themselves Liberals.

I’m going to cover a few of the Hollywood president’s that I’m actually familiar with. I know, why not instead speak about Hollywood characters you know almost nothing about and pretend to be intelligent about them like every other asshole blogger out there who knows so much about nothing. I guess I just have this weakness called character and a conscience that prevents me from talking about people and things I’m simply not familiar with, because I lack interest in them. Anyone born before 1980 might think I’m talking about people from the 19th Century, or something. So you might want to leave this page and get back to your favorite reality TV programs. There’s the asshole in me.

This might sound corny, but I guess my favorite Hollywood president is Andrew Shepard. Who sounds like a Founding Father or something from New England, or some place. But even if Carl Reiner only spent all of two-minutes coming up with the name for Michael Douglas in The American President, this character is a great character. Douglas, plays a president with big progressive goals, but knows how to work with people even in his own party in order to move the ball forward and get a progressive accomplishment. Which is the definition of a pragmatic Progressive, something that I believe Franklin Roosevelt would be proud of. While at the same time he’s also a man and a widower and has needs and falls in love. And hopefully you’re familiar with the rest of the story.

Jack Evans from The Contender from 2000 played by Jeff Bridges. Someone whose determined to nominate and get confirmed a female Vice President after his first Vice President has the nerve to die before his term is up. There’s an unfortunate political correctness slant to this as well. That a President would go out-of-their-way to pick a women as his VP simply because there’s never been a female VP before. But the story is great and the Republican opposition especially in the House of Representatives wants to make Senator Lane Evans personal life especially her sexual history the focal point there. Instead whether she’s qualified for the actual job of both Vice President and President of the United States. Where they never question her credentials. And President Evans and Senator Hanson, never play ball with the House Republicans on her past and nomination.

I would be lax in my duty here if I didn’t mention a character who I spent too much of my life during their seven-year run watching, if I didn’t mention Jeb Bartlett. Who of course is played by the great Martin Sheen in The West Wing. I can’t think of a Hollywood character who was better suited for the job of President of the United States than Jeb Bartlett. Who always knew what was going on what needed to be done and what he needed to do to get it done. That he had his own politics and policies, but who never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. To use a cliché, but who had a Republican Congress his entire time as President. And had to deal with all sorts of horrible issues and a lot tough decisions that yielded him no political benefit. But made them, because they had to be made.

I think if you’re going to do a show or movie about an American president, you should be realistic. Either cover someone who has already had the job, but give your character a different name. But with the same character, personality, intelligence, demeanor, judgement and everything else. And cover similar stories that the real president dealt with. Or come up with your own president that perhaps represents America at its best, or worst and deal with stories that haven’t been dealt with, but are
realistic. I think the problem with a lot of Hollywood political movies especially about the President, is that they look like they come from Hollywood. And they look almost completely make-believe. Like Dave from 1993. The Hollywood president’s that I mentioned are realistic, because the characters are believable and so are the issues that they dealt with.

Reelz Channel: Steve Patterson- The Kennedys in Culture

Source:Reelz Channel- left to right: Katie Holmes & Greg Kinnear as Jacqueline & John F. Kennedy.

Source:The Daily Review

The Kennedys, which I don’t believe was a great mini-series, but it was a very accurate series about The Kennedys. And showed Jack, Bobby and Jackie, for what they were. Not for how their followers want to view them as, but as they were. Jack Kennedy, as this very intelligent man, with a great sense of humor, whose Center-Right liberal politics which was probably ahead of its time back then, but I believe fits in perfectly where America is now. Who was a very hip and even cool man especially for his time, but still looks great today. But who at times had difficult even walking and physically was a very frail man with a serious back condition. Who was never made to be a husband and could never be happy with just one beautiful women.

They showed Bobby Kennedy as the tough bulldog who would have jumped out of an airplane without a parachute for his brother Jack. Who was a bit idealistic compared with Jack’s realism, but who also bring Jack back when he was lacking in confidence and not sure what the right course was to take. The Bay of Pigs fiasco is a perfect example of that where he encourages the President to admit he was wrong and to apologize for it. They showed Jackie as a beautiful adorable stylish women that she was, as if Cutie, I mean Katie Holmes is capable of playing anyone else. Who wanted Jack to be her full-time husband and hated his cheating. They showed Joe Sr. as the tough champion for his family who would do anything for his kids other than let them fail and succeed on their own.

At least one of these episodes is somewhat slow and almost wants at least me to turn the channel. Like the episode involving Rose and her mental retardation. Rose, was the Kennedy daughter who doesn’t have much if any impact on American culture, or politics at all. But that episode gives you an idea what Joe would do for any of his kids. But still, she’s not even a minor player compared with the rest of the Kennedy kids. The 1960 presidential election, the 1946 House election, the 1952 Senate election, the Bay of Pigs episode, the civil rights story, the days leading up to the assassination, President Kennedy’s womanizing, these are all the good stories. In a very good mini-series about the Kennedy Family.

NBC News: The Pragmatic Progressive Versus the Idealistic Socialist

Source:NBC News- with their 2016 Democratic Party presidential debate.

Source:The New Democrat

"Join NBC News' Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and YouTube creators Connor Franta, Marques Brownlee, MinuteEarth and Franchesca Ramsey as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley debate in Charleston, South Carolina. 

Pre-Debate coverage begins at 8pm ET" 

From NBC News 

Unlike in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is down to just 3 presidential candidates at this point, because so much of the party, especially the center-left and center-right, is already in favor of Secretary Hillary Clinton and want her to be President of the United States.

Source:NBC News- Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton 

If you’re familiar with what I wrote about Hillary versus Bernie on Friday, you should know where I’m coming from here. 

Hillary, wants to be the pragmatic Progressive in this race who knows how to get things done, because she’s already done them. The pragmatic Progressive is someone with progressive goals, but is willing to settle for less than the perfect if it means the compromise moves the ball forward on the issue and makes things better than they already are. That is basically her message so far. 

Secretary Clinton wants Bernie Sanders to be seen as a Far-Left, idealistic, Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and whose not in touch with reality. And because he doesn’t see the world for how it is does not know what is possible and what can actually get done. That is Hillary’s message in this debate.

Watching the two-hour debate which I thought was very good and NBC News’s Lester Hold and Andrea Mitchell, other than the Bill Clinton’s and women’s issues, I believe did a very good job. After watching the debate I saw it as a draw with Hillary scoring big on gun control. With Bernie still being unable to answer why he believes voting for the Charleston loophole which you could make a case was a reason for the tragic shootings in Charleston last year. Not Bernie himself, but the loophole and he’s still unable to answer why voting for that loophole was a good idea. 

Bernie, came back on health care to a certain extent. But Hillary now being a very effective counter-puncher (similar to Muhammad Ali) hit him back with: "The Affordable Act, was the best that we can get right now. Let's not scrap it and try to start over especially when we might fail. Instead let's build on the ACA, like with a public option for Medicare and prescription drugs and make it better."

Bernie, scored again on Wall Street and Wall Street reform. Mentioning that Hillary has received a lot of money from Wall Street. But again Hillary, is the only one up there with a plan to reform Wall Street that left-wing economist and columnist Paul Krugman, has endorsed. Professor Krugman, hardly a right-winger, (and the sun is hot and water is wet in the world of obvious) who has a lot of support with both Progressives and Democratic Socialists. 

The debate then moved to foreign policy and national security, where I believe they all do well when it comes to civil liberties. At least in this debate, but of the three Democratic candidates, Senator Sanders comes out number three behind Secretary Clinton and Governor Martin O’Malley. And he’s been in Congress now for twenty-five years and unless he wins the presidency, will be a member of the next Congress as well. I mean calling the King of Jordan, whose a dictator, a hero, is hard to back up and explain to put it mildly. Putting Cuba in the same class as Iran, which is a state-sponsor of terrorism, is also hard to back up.

So on second reflection, this was not a draw, but a clear victory for Hillary Clinton. Not a blowout, but maybe 10-14 points, (hey it’s NFL Playoff season) because again she knows where both the Democratic Party is and where general election voters are. And is putting herself in the position of a mainstream Progressive very similar to President Barack Obama, who knows where the country is what she and the Democratic Party can do and get done. Who has both the Congressional and foreign policy background to be President of the United States, because she knows how the real world works in Washington. 

Hillary versus an idealistic, Vermont Democratic Socialist, who apparently believes the rest of the country is as Far-Left as he is. And believes the country as a whole wants what he wants and will pay the taxes for it. And I think she did an excellent job of framing the debate as a pragmatic Progressive who understands how government works. Going up against an idealistic Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and doesn’t know how to work in the real world.

Jonathan Turley: Hardball With Chris Matthews- Hillary Clinton: Doesn’t Answer The Difference Between a Socialist & Progressive

Source:MSNBC- Hillary R. Clinton, on Hardball With Chris Matthews. 

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to answer Chris Matthews here on the difference between a Progressive, like lets say Hillary Clinton, even if she’s a moderate one. And a Democratic Socialist such as Bernie Sanders.

But before I do that I just want to layout why Hillary probably didn’t answer the question. Assuming she’s the Democratic nominee for president she doesn’t want to offend the Far-Left. She’s going to need them in the summer and fall and working and voting, if they bother to vote at all for Jill Stein. Who would be the Socialist third-party candidate for president for the Green Party. So she doesn’t want to paint Bernie Sanders at least not too hard as some radical Socialist. Who doesn’t represent America and what we stand for. And instead save those charges for the Republicans. Which was probably a smart play on her part.

I’m not running for any office this year. So I have the freedom to answer this question without worrying about offending anyone. When I think of Progressives, I think of Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and go up today to Senator Sherrod Brown. People who don’t want a government big enough to take care of everyone, but want a government with the resources to see that everyone can succeed in America. And have the freedom to do that. People who believe in public infrastructure, public education, job training for low-skilled workers and the under-skilled unemployed. A safety net for people who truly need it. And there other things as it relates to civil rights, national security and foreign policy. But these are good examples.

Democratic Socialists, don’t trust the private sector and private enterprise. See capitalism as a crony way to make a lot of money from investments. Only support private enterprise to the point that they understand economics enough to know that you need a vibrant private sector in order to have a strong growing developed economy with a thriving middle class. So you’re not a Marxist state where there’s no such thing as property rights. With the state in control of everything. But with the central government responsible in seeing that everyone gets the basic services that they need to live well. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, pension and other examples.

Progressives, believe in federalism, checks and balances, put real limits on what the Federal Government should be doing in the economy. Believe in a regulatory state, but not an unlimited one. The Socialist, their ideology is all about not just the state, but the national state. No such thing as taxes being too high with all the services that people get in return. According to the Democratic Socialist. Believe in more of a unitarian government where most of the government power is with the national government. Socialists believe that wealth and being rich are bad things. Because it makes you unequal from people who aren’t wealthy.

There are actual differences between a Progressive, again in the New Deal or Great Society sense. And a Democratic Socialist who didn’t emerge strongly in the Democratic Party until really when Senator George McGovern became a national player in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But Progressives have been around in the Democratic Party at least since Woodrow Wilson if not farther. And they’ve never believed that the American form of government is flawed. And that we need to move a Scandinavian social democratic government where a lot more power is centralized with the central government.