Monday, August 31, 2015

Laugh About: 10 Insane Late Night Talk Show Appearances

Source:The Daily Review

I think the guests that stick out with me from this video, are Paris Hilton. Because she’s only famous, because who her father is and a few failed so-called realty TV shows she’s been on and of course one of perhaps thousands of so-called celebrities that have done time in jail. And if you noticed Dave Letterman, there was nothing else he wanted to talk about with Paris. Why, because she’s not well-known for really anything positive and for any substance. She’s known as a heiress who probably lives off her trust fund from her father and has someone invest and manage that money for her.

The Joaquin Phoenix, is another standout. Joaquin, later apologized to Letterman for his appearance on that show. Hopefully he apologized for not bothering to shave, or getting a haircut, chewing the gum, the sunglasses, perhaps not bathing before coming on. Dave, was expecting to see Joaquin Phoenix and instead what they got was Jim Morrison’s twin brother from 1970. Some zen new aged hipster, who didn’t seem to have a care in the world, or know anything about anything that was going on in his life. Not the way you want to appear on national TV on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Heidi Klum, well because she’s Heidi Klum. Arguably one of the five best looking women to ever come from Germany, or be of ethnic-German descent. I like Steffi Graf and Catherine Bach, but that’s me. That whole setup looked planned to me and Heidi with the sense of humor that she has, probably planned the whole deal herself with Dave and Marty Short, being more than willing helpers with the so-called Heidi wardrobe malfunction. I believe that show was from 2007, just three years after the so-called Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction at that Super Bowl.

Post-Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman to me is the best late night talk show host. And I think I like him the most because of damn straight candor. If he doesn’t have much respect for his guests, or his guests aren’t giving him much to work with and perhaps are acting like they want to be somewhere else, as you saw with Paris Hilton, who perhaps was late for her appointment with her dealer, or Joaquin, who looked like he just woke up from a ten-year coma, which would explain the shades and thick beard, Dave will let you know about it. Without actually telling you how he’s feeling.

Brookings Institution: Thomas Mann: Election 2016: The Dumbing Down of American Politics

Source:The Daily Review

Tom Mann-“Donald Trump and the chorus of Republican presidential aspirants may have appeared to monopolize the capacity to make fantastical claims about what’s wrong with America and how to fix it. But a new entrant–Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig–has outlined a very different sort of fantastical claim. In this post, Thomas Mann looks at Lessig’s candidacy and what it says about the state of American politics.”

The Dumbing Down of American Politics, so I guess American politics had reached a new low and American voters are now borderline retarded. And vote for people based on what realty shows they watch, or who they’re favorite celebrities are, or do they have the same smart phone. Wait, Americans voters already vote for candidates based on those things. How else do you explain our last two president’s. Neither one of them became president based on their deep knowledge of the issues, or their brilliant resumes. But because they’re likable and the country was looking for something different. And this coming from someone who voted for Barack Obama twice. But not because I think he’s like totally awesome, or whatever. But because he was the best person for the job.

I don’t think American politics can get any dumber. The presidential election is already a popularity contest. The candidate who gets the voters to personally like them the most for whatever the reasons tends to get the job. The most important job and election in the world is not rewarded to the person who has the best economic, national security, or foreign policies, but to the person who looks the most Hollywood, lets says. The person whose seen as the hippest. And a lot of our Congressional races both House and Senate are decided that way as well. That is you get a billionaire like a Donald Trump, who the whole country knows from his so-called realty TV show, looking like a contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

As George Carlin, politicians are us. They’re the people they represent. They weren’t beamed down here from Star Trek, or someplace to play career politicians on TV. They live and come from our communities and speak the language of the people they live with and share the same politics. And what career politicians do, that is people who get a heart attack at the even thought of having to have a real job and work outside of government and perhaps go back to selling shoes, or auto insurance, is take advantage of the communities that they come from. And the more extreme the community they represent, the more extreme rhetoric. Whether they actually believe the bullshit that they’re saying, or not.

If Americans want better politicians and politics, they need to be better voters. The only ways someone like a Donald Trump can get on the national scene is, that he’s a billionaire. who had his own so-called reality show and that there a lot of dumb voters in America who believe Latinos are invading America and raping their daughters , trying to occupy America as if they were a Western ISIS and want to create a Greater Mexico. And oh by the way. They believe Latinos are stealing their fast food, food service, retail and agriculture jobs. That most Americans wouldn’t take even if it meant they would have to starve. And what The Donald does, is play to those fears of a very ignorant people who simply don’t know any better.

American voters should look at politicians and political candidates the same way they look at buying a car, or house, or clothes, What’s the best purchase for them based on the money that they can afford to spend on that purchase and exactly who’ll represent them best with that purchase. And stop looking at American politics likes it’s a game show, or beauty contest. But instead whose the best candidate for the job based on how they would vote, or what policies they would push and what they would do for the country. Who would best defend, promote and develop the country so the most Americans possible can live well here. Instead of voting for people based on what they’re favorite movies, or entertainers are and do they watch celebrity TV and so-forth and so on.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Tom Polivka: Seinfeld Season 4: The Outing- A Reporter Believes Jerry and George Are Gay: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

If you think political correctness is bad now and I sure as hell do, then go back to the early 1990s. When homosexuals, especially gay men were just coming out of the closet and just starting to appear on national TV in reality and fictional programming. Whether gay men were queens, or lets say passable as straight and straight people didn’t automatically think they were gay from meeting them, or talking to them, the level of tolerance for homosexuality and gay life, was better than it was in the 1960s or so, but not to the point it is now. Where an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t have a problem with homosexuality. Simply because they know gay people and are friends with them.

I call this Seinfeld episode, the Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That show. Because that phrase is used a lot in this episode and that’s the basic point of the episode. What Jerry and George are saying, is that they’re not gay and want to make that clear to anyone who’ll listen, because they’re not gay and they sure don’t women and potential dates thinking that they’re gay. But they don’t have a problem with gay people being gay. “Its alright if Joe is gay, but I’m not and that lifestyle is not for me.” Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David, the creators and producers of the Seinfeld show, went to gay rights groups and showed them the show ahead of schedule, to get it cleared by them.

There are several things I like about this show as a straight man and as a Liberal whose a strong supporter of free speech and strong opponent of political correctness. Which I see as a form of Far-Left fascism. That they made it clear that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, when the country was still fairly split on that and this episode came out in February, 1993. Same-sex marriage, is nowhere near the political radar and you could still get arrested for being gay in several states. But another thing, is that they took on political correctness directly, when political correctness is still fairly popular in America. And where any joke against any women, or non-straight person, or non-Caucasians, was considered bigoted. Because the political correctness crowd, even sees, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, as homophobic, even if gay people don’t.

The other thing that I love about this episode, is actress Paula Marshall. She’s a beautiful, baby-faced adorable actress, whose like 27 at this point and playing a college student a journalism major. And she’s the one who taped recorded Jerry and George in the diner talking to each other pretending that they were gay and were a couple. Which is really how this episode gets started. Because she ends up interviewing Jerry and George in Jerry’s apartment, about Jerry’s career. And has already written her article in her college newspaper saying that Jerry Seinfeld is gay. And Jerry finds out about that and goes out of his way the rest of the show to prove to her that he’s not gay. Including inviting her over to her apartment for  a date.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police'

Source:The Young Turks- Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with political correctness?" LOL
"Apparently, the bar for racial insensitivity has now been lowered so much that one can be branded with the scarlet "R" for insisting that racial and gender identity issues should be irrelevant in certain circumstances. Merely asserting that merit, and not demographic identifiers which result from accidents of birth, should carry more weight is enough to offend those for whom racial and gender-based grievances suffice for a raison d'ĂȘtre.

Take, for example, Gawker's Kyle Chayka, who objected to comedic legend Jerry Seinfeld's response to a question the performer was asked about his web series, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, primarily featuring young, white men.

"It really pisses me off," Seinfeld said of the logic behind that question.

"People think that it's the census or something," he observed of comedy in general. "It's gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares?""* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down."

From The Young Turks

Damn! I actually agree with both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur on the same show, about the same topic. They both just scored a touchdown and converted a two-point conversion in the liberal column for me. Maybe they aren’t as radical and socialist as I give them credit, or blame for. Depending on your perspective.

It would be one thing if Jerry Seinfeld was just talking to comedians of one race, (in this case Caucasian) because that is the only people he wants to talk to. But that is not what this is about. He interviews people he thinks are funny. And in this case the recent comedians he spoke to, all happened to be Caucasian.

It would be one thing if Jerry said (and I can call him Jerry since I’m his German nephew whose not a Nazi) it would be one thing if Jerry said: “Those African-Americans, (or something else) always bitching about how life is tough in America. They can’t take a joke. I’ve seen Marxist dictators with bigger sense of humors. I know this since I interviewed them. If they think they got it so bad in America, why don’t they go back to Africa.”

But Jerry didn’t say anything like that and is not talking to people based on race, or ethnicity. He simply wants to talk to people who make him laugh. This current group he found just happen to all be from the same race.

And oh by the way: if lets say Chris Rock was doing a show and he only interviewed African-American male comedians, no one would be making an issue of this. Well maybe Breitbart, or Fox News. This same argument could be made against affirmative action. Why not just go where the talent is and just judge people as individuals and let the most qualified people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, get the best jobs. And leave whatever is left for the wannabes of all races, ethnicities, male, female, who gives a damn!

There are times when one group of people, (fill in the blank which group that is) looks a little better than other groups as far as having their members being part of what’s happening in America. That is the way freedom and private enterprise works.

Cenk Uygur made another great point and its the boy who cried wolf analogy. That real racism, is racism. When people are being denied access in life and given harsher treatment simply because of their race, that’s racism. But when you try to apply that label to anything you can think of to try to make people especially who aren’t minorities in this country, look like bigots and have no real evidence of the charge that you’re making, you become the boy, or girl who cries wolf. You end up looking worst than real bigots and sure as hell than the person that you want to look like a bigot.

Crying wolf is like swinging for the fences, (to use a baseball analogy) when you’re a 150 pound shortstop who has never a hit a home run in your life, even in Little League. And every part of the outfield is at least 400 feet away: it doesn’t work.

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

Reason: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ted Balaker: 'Can Americans Still Take a Joke? Comedians Say No'

Source:Reason Magazine- Comedians being interviewed for: Can Americans Still Take a Joke.
"We've all seen it a million times: a comedian tells a joke, someone else gets offended, someone else blogs about it, and then 'boom!,' outrage spreads across the land," says filmmaker Ted Balaker who is currently finishing up his latest documentary, "Can We Take A Joke?." The film, which features comedians Gilbert Gottfried, Jim Norton, Lisa Lampanelli, Adam Carolla, Karith Foster, and Penn Jillette, examines the role of comedy in our culture of constant outrage.

"Comedians don't even have the freedom of conscience to just be neutral on something," Balaker told Reason TV's Nick Gillespie. "[They] have to affirm what the cool kids believe."

From Reason Magazine

Can Americans still take a joke? That is really what this is about and for Americans who believe in political correctness, the answer is no. Doesn't mean they can't get a good joke and understand it. It just means they can take it.

Today's so-called social justice warriors are kind of like boxers with both a glass jaw and a beer belly. Sure! They can see the punches coming and know what they are, they just can't take them. For political correctness fascists, humor is only humor when the humor is directed at the opposition. When its directed at your side of the isle, or your team, crew, clique, whatever the hell you want to call it, the person delivering the humor is a racist, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe and many times all of those things at the same time.

I believe two big cultural problems that we have in America, is that we're no longer just divided politically, but culturally as well. It is no longer Left and Right, but cultural as well. The types of entertainment that you're into as well as entertainers also tends to define your politics as well. And a lot of the entertainers, have become very partisan as well.

Partisan entertainers make fun of the opposition all the time, but when someone takes shots at their side, they'll act like that person is the biggest bigot since Adolf Hitler. And that they should be deported to Siberia, or some place. And when you have entertainers who clearly come from one side of the isle ideologically, take shots at people their crew is supposed to protect, that person is considered a bigot and a traitor. Bill Maher comes to mind.

American politics and politicians, are so messed up right now, that you possibly can't blame just one side, or the other. This blog is called The New Democrat for good reason.

We are New Democrats ideologically and have a very strong liberal viewpoint, but this idea that Democrats and people on the Left are Einstein's and full of perfect genius's, who are completely unflawed, while Republicans and people on the Right are useless bigots who should be put into one giant time machine and sent back to the 1500s or something, is as believable as saying Pat Buchanan, is a gay, immigrant loving zen hipster, who embraces all cultures and loves all Americans. Who now says same-sex marriage should not only be legal everywhere, but we should invade countries where its currently illegal. Who would believe that?

Political correctness fascists, can't have it both ways. If making fun of Hillary Clinton is sexist, just because she's a woman, but taking shots at Michele Bachmann are perfectly legitimate, then neither is sexist and neither is legitimate.

If racial jokes about one group of Americans, generally Caucasian is not racist, then racial jokes about Asians and Africans are not racist either. If you're going to live in a liberal democracy, you need to be able to put up with all sorts of thoughts and ideas and ways of expressing one's self. Otherwise you'll end up in the nut house and perhaps have Michele Bachmann as your roommate. Or end up on Donald Trump's next reality show: Who Wants Donald Trump For President? Wait, that reality show is already playing. The only current hit show on CNN. Learn to take a joke and you'll live a lot longer and better.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

Original Intent Doc: Cultural Marxism: The Idea of Eliminating Free Thought and Free Activity

The video that you’ll see on this post, is the Far-Right version of social collectivism. That the traditional way of life from lets say the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right, should be the dominant way of life in America, if not the West as a whole. So for anyone who thinks I’m picking on Far-Left collectivists here meaning Marxists, actually I’m not. I’m going to go after both fringes from both wings when it comes to social collectivists in America.

Cultural Marxism, is the idea that free thought and activity are somehow dangerous to society. The idea being that when people think and act for themselves, they’ll think and act in the wrong way and put the state at risk. Cultural Marxism, at least to me along with communism, are Far-Left versions of fascism. The idea that individual freedom and individualism, are not only dangerous, but unnecessary, because Marx and the state knows best what people need to live well and what they should believe and know. So this is the Far-Left version of fascism and social collectivism.

Examples of Cultural Marxism, would be political correctness. The idea that free speech is dangerous, because it gives people the freedom to say things that Marxists and other leftist collectivists feel would be offensive to people they care about. So what you need is collective speech instead. And have an official authority to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate to say in society. And there is a right-wing version of political correctness and censorship as well. That I’ll get into later.

Another example of Cultural Marxism has to do with human activity and lifestyle. That masculinity and straight males in general, are dangerous for society. Because they tend to be dangerous, as well as sexist and especially if they’re Caucasian, they tend to be racist, sexist and homophobic. That religion, especially Western religions like Christianity, are dangerous for society. And what you need is a completely secular culture, or at least a culture without Christianity and Judaism. And instead everyone would look to Marx for their inspiration.

Now the right-wing version of Cultural Marxism. I’m not sure if there’s one term for right-wing collectivism. I tend to look at so-called Christian-Conservatism. But even so-called Christian-Conservatives, who live very traditionally culturally conservatives lives, are not looking to force their way of life on society as a whole. I believe William F. Buckley, who tended to be conservative-libertarian on a lot of social issues, but lived a pretty culturally conservative life, would be a pretty good example of a Christian-Conservative, who doesn’t want to combine their religion with state.

I also look at neoconservatism, or the New-Conservatism when it comes to right-wing social collectivism. And what they believe is that America has been going downhill since the 1960s when the non-Marxists on the Left, Liberals and Liberal-Libertarians, came to prominence and of age. And said the 1940s and 1950s traditional way of life, is too constrictive for them. And people need the freedom to live their own lives and be themselves. Live as individuals and not as members of the collective, or collectivists. And what Neoconservatives want to do is impose the 1940s and 1950s way of life on the country as a whole. Instead of allowing Americans to live their own lives.

Neoconservative political correctness, would be the goal to eliminate speech that goes against the state and what the country is supposed to stand for. So political speech that goes against right-wing governmental policy. The way the Nixon Administration reacted to the anti-war movement in the early 1970s and doing all sorts of investigations about that movement and labeling them Communists. As well as the goal of censoring and eliminating entertainment like music and movies that the Christian-Right sees as immoral. Violent and sexual activity on TV and in music would be examples of this.

As a Liberal, I’m against collectivism in general, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. And this blog covers fascism coming from both fringes a lot. Americans, should be free to act and think for themselves and then be held accountable for how they act and what they say. You put all the facts, information and thoughts out there, teach people how to think, but not what to think and you’ll create and educated society where people will be able to figure these things out for themselves. Instead of trying to create a collectivist society, where people are treated like idiots and where the central state does their thinking and acting for them.

MSNBC: The Mind of Manson- Keith Morrison: Documentary on Charles Manson

Source:MSNBC- interviewing convicted serial murderer and cult leader Charles Manson.
“I’ve also uploaded all of Manson’s music. If you’d like to hear it, send me a message and I’ll send you the links.”

Source:One Two Sixx

“Description: Robin Sax Legal talk Good Day Charles Manson Family Bruce Davis release and Gov. Brown.” 

Source:Michaels Backporch- with a video about The Manson Family.

From Michaels Backporch

Whatever your position on the death penalty is and even if you’re in favor of the death penalty, but agree that forty-five years later not executing the Manson Family murderers other than Charlie Manson himself was the correct decision. I think most of the country can agree that once you intentionally take the innocent life of another human being and are convicted of that murder, or murderers, you forfeit your right to freedom for the rest of your life. I could imagine only anti-use of force at anytime groups, as well as anti-prison advocates, or Anarchists having a problem with that.

Bruce Davis, has never even admitted, or apologized for his role in the Manson murders. The only thing that puts him ahead of Charlie, is that he’s made a productive life for himself while in prison. Which is one of the reasons for having prison. Which is the whole point of rehabilitation which is self-improvement and not just preparing people who have a release date on the outside for life there, but empowering people who are serving life, or very long sentences to make a positive life for them self in prison and allow for them to give back. Which is what she should be doing a lot more with our prisons and would make them a lot more affordable to run. But that’s a different subject.

Once you murder someone, you can’t take that back. Your victim never recovers from that. And because of that why should the murder be able to live freely when their victim, or victims can never live at all? No one should feel sorry for anyone who decided to hook up with Charlie Manson. None of the Manson Family members were kidnapped and all voluntarily joined that group. And they were all eighteen, or older when they got involved and they all knew what they were doing when they committed those murders. And they’re all paying the price for it in prison and will continue to pay that price as long as they’re alive. Because their victims will never recover from their murders. 

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

Friday, August 28, 2015

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor: 'States as The Laboratories of Democracy: An Historical Note'

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis.

"Perhaps the most famous metaphor defending the virtues of US federalism is that states can act as laboratories of democracy: that is,  states can enact a range of policies, and can then learn from the experiences of other states. The phrase was coined by Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1932 Supreme Court case of...  

U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  

"Nick Gillespie ( discusses federalism. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel talking to Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie.
From Liberty Pen

I guess one of the advantages of living in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people that has fifty states, is that it gives you this great opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. And what works and where it works and what doesn’t and where it doesn’t work. That is the beauty of a Federal Republic. 

We’re still one country as Progressives and Social Democrats like to say, which is true of course. But within that country you have all of these states, counties and cities, that are not just there, unlike let's says the United Kingdom, which has a unitarian national government, but they have real say over their own affairs within their own jurisdiction.

Federalism, doesn’t mean that states have all the power and that the Feds are just responsible for national security, foreign affairs, trade, and the currency. And it also doesn’t mean that the Feds have most if not all the power. 

If we had one superstate with most of the power in the national government, we wouldn’t have a Federal system and wouldn’t be a Federal Republic. We would be a unitarian state and perhaps not even a republic. 

Federalism, simply defines the roles of the Feds, states and localities in what each level of government is responsible for doing. The Feds, are primarily responsible for national security, foreign affairs, but are also responsible for homeland security, interstate crime, and commerce.

The states and localities, are primarily responsible for what happens in their own jurisdiction. Infrastructure, education, law enforcement, regulating and developing their economies, like encouraging investment prosecuting predatory behavior (To use as examples) But the Feds have a role here in how these issues relate to the country as well. Not to run them for the states and localities and take over them, but to offer input and resources. And regulate interstate commerce and trade and prosecute interstate crimes. 

And under a federalist system like this, you get to see what works and what doesn’t and where. As it relates to education, social insurance for people in need, economic development, energy, criminal justice and a lot of other areas.

Federalism and the Federal Republic, is essentially locked in stone in America. I’ve argued in the past that what today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) for them to accomplish what they want to do politically in America, they would need several constitutional amendments, if not rewrite it, or eliminate it. Because they would like to see a lot more power in America transferred from the private sector and states, to the Federal Government. As it relates to education, current social insurance programs and would like to create a superstate in America in the form of a welfare state that would be completely managed by Washington. But even people in their ranks like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, aren’t looking to break up our federalist system.

Myself, I’m a Liberal Federalist, which means that I might not agree with everything that a state is doing, but as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights when it comes to their own laws and policies. 

So for example, if Georgia wants private school vouchers and passes that law, I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, but they are within their rights to do that. But if they passed a law that says certain people can’t go to certain public schools, because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, they would obviously be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the Georgia State Constitution as well.

We have a U.S. Constitution, that is like the official rule book for American government at all levels. And as long as government is following the rules of the rulebook, they are within their rights. And if the people don’t like how their government is playing (so to speak) they can always fire them and replace them with people that they believe will represent them better. That is where liberal democracy comes into play in our Federal system. Which is why I call the United States a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We’re not really one, or the other, but a free society and state that operates under both systems into one bigger system. 

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

The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.

That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.

What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.

So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The National Journal: Clare Foran: All The Ways 2016 Contenders Want to Change the Constitution

I have to admit, that 2015-16, at least not yet isn’t as interesting as the 2011-12 presidential election cycle, at least when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and proposed constitutional amendments. In 2011-12, you had so-called constitutional conservatives like Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum, both offer several amendments to the Constitution. Representative Bachmann, wanted to use the Constitution so the Federal Government could outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage. Senator Santorum, would’ve actually gone further and supported the first two amendments, but added an amendment to outlaw gambling from the Federal level as well.

Now it seems to me anyway looking from this from the outside as a non-conservative, that someone who calls them self a Constitutional Conservative, would like the Constitution as is. And want to, gee I don’t know, conserve the Constitution as is. And leave the constitutional amendments to Progressives who want the Constitution to progress forward and create more, well progress. I mean this all sounds like commonsense anyway and maybe I just get from not being an addicted career politician whose only happy when I’m holding office and looking for the next step up in my political career. And as a result I feel giant craving for voters who I need to like me.

2015-16, isn’t as bad, at least so far. Hold the phone, because we still have more than fourteen months until the presidential election. You got a couple Democratic presidential contenders, offering amendments to overturn Citizens United. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And few Republicans offering amendments to allow for states to define marriage as only between a man and women. Governor Scott Walker, offered that amendment. Senator Marco Rubio, offered an amendment to excuse people who choose not to buy health insurance from paying a tax on that. Mr. Big Government anti-Federalist Republican Rick Santorum, is back at it with an amendment that would have the Federal Government define marriage for everyone else. Between a man and women.

Keep in mind, the politicians and wannabe politicians that are offering all of these amendments, are all smart enough to know what it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution and why we only have like 27 amendments to it. They all know that there’s a better chance of Paris Hilton winning an honorary degree from both Harvard and Stanford, than the U.S. Constitution being changed anytime soon. What they’re counting on I believe at least is the people they’re speaking to, are unaware of how unlikely these proposals would ever become law. They’re speaking to their audiences and bases both Republican and Democrat. And represent a big reason why so many Americans don’t like American politics and don’t bother to even vote.

Clinton Library 42: President Bill Clinton's Press Conference- March, 1994

Source:The Clinton Library- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) giving a press conference in 1994.
"This is video footage of President William Jefferson Clinton delivering a press conference in the East Room at the White House.  This footage is official public record produced by the White House Television (WHTV) crew, provided by the Clinton Presidential Library." 

From The Clinton Library

As unpopular as the first two years of the Bill Clinton Administration were and how unpopular that Democratic Congress was, it was a very productive Congress and two years for President Clinton. And he actually managed unlike President Obama, to get support from Congressional Republicans on some of his initiatives. Like with two 1993 trade deals, NAFTA and GAT, Family and Medical Leave, the 1994 Crime Bill and few other things.

What cost President Clinton Congress in 1994, was not Congressional gridlock, or even his unpopularity, but really two bills that the President got out of Congress and one bill that President Clinton failed to get out of Congress, that Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate were able to go to town with. 

The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, that not a single Republican in Congress in either chamber voted for, that had a tax hike on the wealthy. The 1993 Crime Bill, that had a gun control provision, a background check before people could buy guns. And of course President Clinton’s failed attempt at comprehensive health care reform.

Whitewater, was a distraction for President Clinton and his administration, but as we know now and as President Clinton told the press over and over more than twenty years ago now, there was nothing there, as far as evidence of criminal behavior from either Bill, or Hillary Clinton. 

And the whole Whitewater investigation was an example of the problems with the so-called independent counsel law, because the Whitewater investment happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. More than ten years before Bill Clinton became President of the United States. If the Independent Counsel, was only allowed to investigate Federal officials and what might have gone on while they were employed by the Federal Government, a lot of the Bill Clinton Federal investigations never happen.

What you see here with the questioning in this press conference, is a press that seems to only be interested in supposed scandal and not what is actually going on in the country and what President Clinton and his administration is working on, like as it relates to the crime bill, health care reform, relations with Congress with both parties, what is going on in foreign policy, like with North Korea, Somalia, the Middle East, China, North Korea, Russia, etc, this press conference looks like CNN of today, where they are overly scandal hungry. And where they’re looking for the next so-called OMG, or awesome story. That will drive ratings and they can spend all of their coverage on.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Oxford Union: Jeremy Corbyn- 'Socialism Does Work'

Source:Oxford Union- UK Labour and Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn.

"Jeremy Corbyn addresses the issue of healthcare saying that the socialist and communist thinkers of the 19th Century had a vision that healthcare should be available to all people, this had lead to the NHS today and is something we should be proud of. He concludes by saying the chamber should vote in favour of equality. 

Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013
MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.
RESULT: Motion Defeated." 

From the Oxford Union

Wow! My first opportunity to blog about Jeremy Corbyn, who may end up being the next Leader of the Opposition in Britain next month. I’m really only interested in democratic socialism when it comes to socialism. Marxism, I see as another ideology and an extreme form of statism as it relates to social, economic and political policy. 

Democratic Socialists, are not Marxists, otherwise they would be Marxists. And when you think of socialism, you should think of the European Union, especially the Anglo-Saxon states like Britain and look at the Nordic states in Scandinavia. When you think of Marxism, look at the old Soviet Union. And look at North Korea today.

For me at least, it’s not a question of whether socialism works, not, but how far you go with it. How much do you want centralized with the national government. With the state, or provincial government’s doing less, as well as the local government’s and private sector doing less. Because every developed democratic country in the world has a level of socialism in their national government at least. 

Democratic socialism, is really about having a big welfare state and big centralized national government, to see to it that no one in society has to go without. And that the central government is responsible for a lot of the basic human services in life. But that the welfare state is essentially funded by a large private sector. Yes, capitalism and private enterprise.

This debate is not whether you should have a command and control Marxist state-owned economy. Or do you want the entire economy to be left in the hands of the private sector. With government only being left with national security, foreign policy, national reserve and law enforcement. 

This is a debate about how much do you want government doing for the people. How big you want the central state to be versus the state/provincial government’s, local government’s and private sector. But that there is a private sector, because even Democratic Socialists know that Marxism doesn’t work. If it did, the Soviet Union would still be in business today. Cuba, wouldn’t have started privatizing parts of their economy and North Korea, wouldn’t be the hell hole that it is. 

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

Hoover Institution: Colin Dueck: The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today

President Barack Obama laid out The Obama Doctrine in the spring of 2011. He obviously wanted to move away from the Bush Administration’s neoconservative unilateral military force is always the first option policy. But he’s not an isolationist from the Far-Left, or anywhere else that sees America and the American military as a force of evil and the reason for violence around the world. This argument that President Obama is afraid to use the military, or is anti-military, simply doesn’t hold. He expanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009, the so-called Afghan surge. And committed us to the Libyan no fly zone in 2011. And tried to get Congressional approval to hit the Assad Regime from the air in 2013, but failed to get it.

To put it simply, Barack Obama is a liberal multi-lateral internationalist. That America should be strong at home both militarily and economically. So no one would want to, or would be able to attack the United States. But work with our allies abroad to deal with crisis’ oversees. That America should take a lead role around the world, but simply can’t lead the world and certainly not police the world, especially by ourselves. This idea that President Obama has pulled America back, is true. But he has pulled America back in the sense that we no longer try to do everything ourselves. We negotiate with others especially to avoid war and avoid invading countries simply because we see them as dangerous.

President Obama, is not some New-Left radical from the 1960s. Who never believes in the use of force and is a pacifist as well as an isolationist. And if you don’t believe that, just ask Code Pink, who do represent the Far-Left in America, at least when it comes to the American national security and foreign policy. Code Pink, has all sorts of issues when it comes President Obama on foreign policy and national security. President Obama, believes in defending our interests and defending our values around the world and even using our military to do that. But that even though we are the strongest power in the world, we aren’t the only one. And that we have partners who have responsibilities as well. Canada and Europe especially, but in the Middle East and Asia, as well.

I think the only thing that I agree with this right-wing anti-Obama presentation from the Hoover Institution here, is that President Obama, does believe domestic policy is related to foreign policy and national security. I would just put it differently. The President believes that for America to be as strong as it possibly can, we need to be as strong at home as possible as well. We need a strong economy, a modern infrastructure system, a modern immigration policy, reform our tax code, get off of foreign oil and gas, develop our own natural resources, expand American exports. So we have the resources that we need and the influence that we need to defend our national interests and values.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Thoughts on Liberty: Aunt Merryweather: What is Left Libertarianism?

Source:The New Democrat

The way Aunt Merryweather describes left-libertarianism, is how social liberalism is described and what social liberalism is. I use to see myself as a Classical Liberal, or even Liberal, which is what this blog is about for the most part. And then I read up on so-called Social Liberals and social liberalism. And the way that is put is people who believe in both individual freedom, both personal economic. But they also believe in using government to expand freedom for people who are struggling. You can call that the safety net, or social justice.

So after reading up on Social Liberals and social liberalism, I thought to myself, you know what I’m a Social Liberal. I didn’t like that term before, because when that term is used today that is the way you would describe a Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist, or even Progressives of today. People who believe in not only a supersize welfare state, even if that means less income for people individually with higher taxes, but a nanny state. To make sure people are living healthy and not making bad decisions with their own personal lives.

If more Americans would just read up on social democracy and democratic socialism and then looked at their own politics and realized they believe in both personal and economic freedom. And don’t want a big government to try to manage their own lives for them economically, or personally, they would realize that they’re Social Liberals as well. Because they believe in a safety net and social insurance, but that those things should be for people who truly need them. Not big enough to try to run people’s lives for them. And only be left with mindless decisions over their own affairs. Without being able to take any risks with their lives.

I’ve never thought of myself as a Libertarian, even though I tend to be with Libertarians on 99% of the social issues generally. And even a lot of the economic issues. Because again it gets to role of government. I don’t want a big government, but I want a government effective enough to protect the innocent from predators who would harm them intentionally, or otherwise. Which includes, law enforcement and national security, but also a regulatory state not to run business’s for the people, but again to protect the innocent from predators. So products are being made safely and for the consumers as well. And today’s so-called Libertarians, don’t seem to have much if any role for government at any level.

C-SPAN: President John F. Kennedy's American University Peace Speech

Source: C-SPAN- President John F. Kennedy-

I believe the whole point of President Kennedy’s speech here is that as different as the American and Russian form of government’s and system’s during the Cold War were, that the American and Russian people actually have a lot more in common that a lot of people tend to think. That we all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, cherish our children’s future and so-forth. That as bad as the Russian communist system was, there were plenty of things to actually like about the Russian people and Russian society. The only thing a superpower war would’ve brought America and Russia, is mutual destruction.

I think what President Kennedy was calling for was to find ways where America could work with Russia on their common interests and actually learn from each other. That both countries were going to do their things so to speak and promote their interests and system’s, but trying to destroy each other was simply not an option. Because both countries would end up destroyed essentially even if one of them were to come out looking a little better. As long as the Cold War was, the United States and Soviet Union, never went to battle with each other physically. Because they were both smart and sane enough to know the consequences of such a war.

I believe had President Kennedy lived and finished out his presidency, he probably gets reelected in 1964 against Senator Barry Goldwater. And this peace through strength strategy that I believe he was laying out here would have gone into effect. That America, would have continued to be as physically and economically as strong as possible, but not to physically destroy the Soviet Union. But to show them that they can’t destroy us and that are economic and political system’s are so much stronger than their’s and that it would be in their best interest to work with us. Simply because they would never even be strong enough economically to even compete with us with their Marxist system.

Monday, August 24, 2015

The Washington Monthly: Martin Longman: White House Heroin Initiative is a Start

Washington Monthly: Opinion: Martin Longman: White House Heroin Initiative is a Start

This is really something that we should’ve been doing since the so-called War on Drugs started in 1971. But then had we of done that, then maybe the War on Drugs is never started. Wait, that would’ve actually been a great thing. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of people we wouldn’t have in prison today. And instead of collecting tax dollars, instead they’re getting cleaned and paying into the system instead. What I’m getting at is not a question of whether this would be a good idea or not. That is treating non-drug selling drug offenders as addicts and putting them in rehab instead of jail. But the question is like any government initiative especially when budgets are tight, is how you pay for it.

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which I believe I’ve made clear on this blog. But it does have at least three major shortfalls. Not creating a public option for Medicare. So non-seniors, could pay into Medicare along with their employers and use that as their health insurance. And it would have been their option, not mandate. Dealing with mental health care and not fulling paying for our mental health care system in this country. Had we done that, I believe we would have fewer shootings today. Because those shooters would have been in a mental hospital getting the help that they need. And the other has to do with drug rehab and the War on Drugs.

You put drug addicts into rehab and people who are caught in possession of heroin, cocaine, or meth, in halfway houses, if they’re not addicts instead of jail, or prison and same thing with small time drug dealers, we would have a mentally and physically healthier country. We would also have a hell of a lot fewer people in the criminal justice system. Instead they would be in the health care system as it as to do with drug abuse. And abusing alcohol, tobacco and legal medications, is also abusing drugs. Only you don’t go to jail for abusing those drugs if that’s all you’re doing. But you do make a mess of your life that others may have to pay for.

I think the way we finance drug rehab in America, is the same way we could finance mental health. Which is though the health insurance system both private and public. Require all public and private health insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, to cover mental health and drug rehab. I would even be happy raise the payroll tax and cut the corporate tax to pay for this. So people don’t lose other benefits as a result. And tell illegal drug users, that they’re going to rehab instead of jail. And they successfully complete the program. They won’t get a criminal record as a result. Instead of treating essentially mental patients, which addicts are in a way, like felons.

The National Interest: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

The National Interest: Blog: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

I believe Les Gelb has the right attitude here and he’s someone who knows about American Power being the President of the Council of Foreign Relations. American Power, it depends on how you define it. I find think of most Americans when they think of American Power think of the U.S. Armed Forces and the broader National Security State. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, to use as an example. But our entire National Security Council is part of American Power. Which includes the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as our Treasury Department.

See American Power, is our Armed Forces, and the National Security State, but it is also our economy. The stronger our economy is, the better our military can be. The more effective our economic sanctions against terrorist states can be. The main reason we won the Cold War against Russia, is because our economic strength. Their Marxist system simply failed their country. And their people had enough and you saw all of those non-ethnic Russian Soviet Republics break up and form their own countries. America, probably had a stronger military than Russia during the Cold War. But our economy and economic system was the main weapon there.

Now the purpose of American Power again using the NSC and economy to make America as strong as it can be. So we never have to worry about our own security. At least in the sense that someone could invade us, or wipe out a section of our country, or even attack us from the air. Which is where we’ve always have been at least since Pearl Harbor. The purpose of American Power is not to rule the world, or even police the world. At least by ourself, but to use our power to more than adequately defend us when needed. And to advance our interests and values that a lot of the world already shares.

I agree with Les Gelb, that America is and should be the strongest leader in the world. Simply because we are and there isn’t another democratic developed nation in the world that is capable of replacing us, or even coming close. But being the strongest leader in the world and the most powerful country economically and everything else, is different from being the leader of the world. And having to take all the risks and pay all the price when some crisis develops around the world. While everyone else debates what America should be doing at the debating society known as the United Nations. While they don’t do anything themselves.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

CBS News: Longines Chronoscope- U.S. Senator Richard Russell (1952)

Source:CBS News- Bradford Hewitt & Paul Martin.

"LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH RICHARD B. RUSSELL - National Archives and Records Administration   - ARC Identifier 95749 / Local Identifier LW-LW-80 - Interview with Richard Russell. DVD copied by IASL Master Scanner Katie Filbert."

Senator Richard Russell, was one of the leading Dixiecrats in Congress for almost forty-years. He was the Chairman of Southern Caucus in Congress and led the opposition to every civil rights bill in Congress in the 1950s and 1960s. To be honest with you, as a Liberal Democrat, I’m glad he would a Republican today and that he is a big reason why Senate cloture rule was changed in 1975. So that instead of needing 67 votes to end debate, now the Senate needed 60. Because Senator Russell, was in Congress at the height of the civil rights battles in the 1950s and 60s. And those laws could have been passed faster without Russell and the Dixiecrats in Congress.

What is a Dixiecrat? They’re almost gone and out of the Democratic Party now if not gone all together. But today Dixiecrats are Southern right-wing Republicans. Both conservative libertarian, like with Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina and a whole host of so-called Religious-Conservatives in Congress, in the House and Senate. Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, would be an example of a Religious-Conservative Republican in Congress. But from the end of the American Civil War, if not farther back, Dixiecrats were right-wing Democrats. Who believed in states rights and were strong Federalists, as am I. But they believed federalism gave the states the right to deny their residents access based on race. I do not.

In 1952, when this interview was done, the civil rights movement was really just under way. Even though it had already won a big battle in the 1940s with President Harry Truman desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces. Senator Russell, ran for president in 1952 and was a Dixiecrat. And a true Federalist and part of his federalism was that the states could handle their own domestic issues entirely. And even force their residents to be separated by race and allow for business owners to deny people access to their business based on race. And force African-Americans to sit in the back of the bus and go to rotten schools and you can go down the line. So the Dick Russell you see in 1952, is the same Dick Russell that fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. And other civil rights laws and help for poor people of all races from the Federal Government.

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

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Public Domain Footage: Robert F. Kennedy- Columbia University (1964)'

Source:Public Domain Footage- U.S. Senate candidate Robert F. Kennedy, speaking at Columba University in 1964.
"Robert F. Kennedy speech at Columbia University 1964 - RFK speaking"

From Public Domain Footage

Robert F. Kennedy, running for U.S. Senate in 1964 and not to replace one of his brothers in Massachusetts, but to run for Senate in New York. A great opportunity for Bobby Kennedy as well in 1964, because Senator Ken Keating, from New York wasn’t very popular in New York. President Lyndon Johnson, was going to win New York in a landslide. And here is where Bobby Kennedy, had an opportunity to jump on Lyndon’s coattails and take a seat in the U.S. Senate in the following Congress.

I believe Kennedy, answered the carpetbagger question very well. Of course with his Irish-Boston accent, he didn’t sound very New York. Either from New York City, or upstate like in Buffalo, or some place. But he grew up in New York City and spent most of his professional career in Washington and had a home in New York.

This is not like Hillary Clinton, who grew up in Chicago and spent a lot of her professional career in Arkansas with her husband and then a New York Senate seat opens up in 2000 and she decides she’s going to be the next U.S. Senator from New York. A state where she didn’t have any roots in going in.

I think Bobby Kennedy, answered the presidential question very well to. You can’t run for both President and U.S. Senate at the same time. At least in most states and that would be borderline impossible to do so before you’re actually in the Senate.

Kennedy, was clearly a Senate candidate in 1964 for New York. So that was the seat and race he was focused on. And again in 1964, LBJ looked like he would probably run for reelection in 1968 and perhaps even be popular. RFK and LBJ, were both Democrats. So as RFK said, 1972 eight years after 1964 would’ve been the earliest that he could run for president.

Bobby Kennedy’s politics, might have changed a bit from 1964 to 1967-68. But that had to do with the Vietnam War and growing poverty and racial division in America in the late 1960s.

But in 1964, I believe RFK was still an establishment Center-Left Progressive Democrat like his brother Jack. And you could argue that he moved left from that by 1967. But in 1964 he was running for U.S. Senate essentially to continue the vision and goals of President Kennedy. Expanding freedom and opportunity to all Americans and dealing with civil rights, equal rights and equality of opportunity for the whole country. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

Late Night with Seth Myers: David Brock & Jerry Seinfeld: Jerry Seinfeld is Tired of Political Correctness

“There’s this creepy political correctness thing going on right now.” To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld and perhaps my version sounds better. But I couldn’t agree more. I could try I guess, if only I had so much time to waste. Who are these judges of what’s appropriate and inappropriate language and humor in America anyway and why are they all on the Far-Left? America, is not Sweden, obviously our weather is a lot better and not all our women are blonde. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have a guaranteed constitutional liberal right to free speech. If we didn’t, maybe we would be Sweden.

And the problem is, we either have this New York, or San Francisco, or Seattle centric faction of Americans, who don’t believe in free speech. Because free speech means people can essentially say whatever the hell they want. Even if someone else disagrees, or disapproves. And they are also the biggest tight asses, that you’ll ever see. And no I’m not talking about beautiful sexy curvy women. I’m talking about a tight ass, whose foot is far up their ass and think so highly of them self that they can’t take a joke. Either about them self, because they see them self as perfect, as well as the people they associate with in their local coffee-house wearing their berets reading and listening to poetry.

People who can’t take jokes, should not listen to comedy, or read comedy. Because comedians get paid to make people laugh and tell jokes. I know, that sounds crazy. Now you’re thinking I’m going to suggest that actors who get paid to act and pitchers get who paid to pitch. I know it’s a crazy world, but part of making people laugh is making fun of people who have weakness’. Not to make those people look bad and hurt their feelings, but to show sides of people where they can use some self-improvement. And again if you can’t take a joke, maybe America is not the right place for you. And maybe you would be better off in a country where everybody thinks and talks the way you do.

G. Edward Griffin: 'More Deadly Than War'

Source:The New Democrat- G. Edward Griffin, talking about Communists and the civil rights movement.
"Full length presentation of 1969 lecture by G. Edward Griffin.  How prophetic his words have become." 

From the self-described Renaissance Man

Communists, at least self-described Communists have never had any real power in America. The only real movement they had in America that was able to gain any momentum, popularity and gain attention, was the Black Panther and Black Power movement of the 1960s. That was made up of more than African-Americans, but other Americans as well. 

The New-Left of the 1960s, had both a social democratic and Communist movement in it. But Socialists, at best today whether they self-describe themselves that way, or not, are at best 15-20% of the population. Marxist-Communists, again self-described, or not, are not even ten-percent in America.

When you look at third-parties in America, there have only been two third-parties that have gained any prominence and traction in the last twenty-years or so. The Libertarian Party, that has a large growing movement in and outside of the Republican Party. And the social democratic Green Party, that has a growing movement in and outside of the Democratic Party. 

The Bernie Sanders movement, is essentially the Green Party right now ideologically. And the title of this film is The Communist Revolution in America and it came out in 1969. And yet who are these Communist revolutionaries who are going to put this revolution together.

What this film really looks like to me, is a right-wing propaganda film, or at least a right-wing perspective and the opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That, civil rights freedom fighters who non-violently for the most part fought for equal rights for African and other Americans in the 1960s, really weren't freedom fighters at all. They were really Russian agents working for the Communist Party in Russia to spread communism in America. 

This looks like a lot of, right-wing garbage. (To put it mildly) Anglo-Saxon mostly Americans who in 1969 of course were still angry about losing all of those civil rights battles of the 1960s. 

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

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Lesley Stahl Interviews Jimmy Carter: The White House Diary

Source:CBS News- 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl, interviewing President Jimmy Carter (Democrat, Georgia) 
"Lesley Stahl speaks to the former president about his new book, "White House Diary," in which he admits mistakes and blames Ted Kennedy for delaying comprehensive health care." 

From CBS News

I mentioned this last week, but President Jimmy Carter was not a failed president and I laid out why I believe that. And of course we have the benefit of history now. And the economy was in bad shape when he left and the Soviet Union seemed to be stronger, even though again from the benefit of history their economy was failing with all of their bread lines, unemployment, poverty, shortages, that took them at least twenty years to over. So of course the Soviet Union wasn’t stronger when President Carter left office. Their military was just doing more because they thought America was weak.

There are a couple of reasons why Jimmy Carter wasn’t a great president. One of them his fault and the other partly his fault. His relationship with the two Democratic Congress’s that he had, especially with Senator Ted Kennedy, but Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil and Senate Leader Robert Byrd and many other examples. President Carter, actually had a better relationship with Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker (the ranking Republican in Congress during the Carter years) then he probably had with any Democratic leader in Congress. Including Southern Democrats who he probably had things in common with.

The other issue being all the problems that he had to deal with as president. Not his fault for the most part that they happened. Especially with the economy, but where he comes up short from my perspective at least was his failure to deal with them and gain traction and success in those areas. President Obama, inherited a worst economy then either President Carter, or President Reagan and yet the economy started moving again fairly quickly under his administration. And started creating jobs early in his second year.

I think what you see in the Carter White House diary, is what Americans back then and today really like and respect about the man. That Jimmy Carter, is a person and individual before he’s a politician.
He’s the politician that Americans say they want. Above board, free-thinker, free speaker, above politics, not all the time, but a lot of the time, does and says what he believes and then deals with the consequences. Including about how he feels with people he has to work with. As you see in his White House diary. 

The problem with Americans though and perhaps where Carter’s personality hurt him, is that is just what Americans say they want. They actually prefer bullshit artists who tell them what they want to hear, generally, then free thinkers. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Friday, August 21, 2015

Liberty Pen: John Stossel: Starr Parker, "The Lie of The Left": Give Me a Break!

“The Lie of The Left”, not sure which Left Starr Parker is referring to. Because it is a very large political faction of people in America. Just look at the Democratic Party. Where you have Center-Left Liberals such as myself and then you have Progressives, who are a bit left of me, but still in the mainstream of American politics. But then you have Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, who are very way left and look more like the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party, than they do the Democratic Party. So is Starr Parker, saying everyone on the Left lies?

Of course racism, stills plays a factor in America and Americans are denied access as a result. It’s not the only reason for poverty in America and perhaps not much of a reason at all. But if you get yourself an education and you apply yourself and show perspective employers that hiring you can would benefit the organization, you can overcome racism. It also helps to have access to good lawyers when you are denied a position because of your race. So the person who victimized you won’t want to do that again and pay a price for what they did to you.

I agree with Starr Parker about the welfare system. Which is why it was reformed in 1996, but we need to go further with that. But this idea that The Left, again as if there’s one Left, as if there was one Right, especially when you have John Stossel talking to Starr Parker, believe that if you’re born Black, or Brown, or whatever it might be that you’re automatically going to have to live in poverty in America, especially with people compared with lighter complexions, is stupid. The Far-Left, I’m sure believes that. Black Lives Matter, would be an example of that.

Another thing, I’m not sure what world Starr Parker is living in and I’m glad she was able to get herself off of Welfare. But this idea that racism has nothing to do with people either being denied access, or living in poverty is foolish. 12-100 Americans, are African-American. 70-100 Americans are Caucasian, depending on how you define Hispanics. Race, is obviously a factor in this country, so just on numbers alone African-Americans are more likely to be exposed to racism than Caucasians. Again not sure what world Starr Parker is living in. And perhaps she lives somewhere in America where people are never judged by their complexion, or their race. Sounds like paradise and a place that I would like to visit myself.

James Miller Center: President Jimmy Carter: University of Notre Dame 1977 Commencement

This speech by President Carter in 1977 was not only huge, but I think the best speech he's ever given. And perhaps the best speech that any president has ever given when it comes to human rights and freedom. Making human rights an official part of American foreign policy and that the goal of the Carter Administration would be to promote human rights around the world. And that foreign aid would be one of those tools to do that. Which means to me at least that he wanted a foreign policy that would stop backing and subsidizing unilateralist authoritarian dictators.

This is really important, because the Soviet Union was making a big play to promote communism and their brand of authoritarianism around the world. They wanted to do that in Ethiopia, which already had an authoritarian government and they invaded Afghanistan that had a moderate monarchy. And while Russia is promoting their idea of authoritarianism around the world, here you have the leader of the free world, the leader of the most powerful and important liberal democracy in the world in Jimmy Carter, coming back and saying that human rights is what we should be talking about and what the world needs.

I would've liked to of seen more of this in his President Carter's foreign policy and make foreign aid a tool in promoting human rights, freedom and economic development in developing countries. And saying that the United States is no longer going to subsidize dictators and other authoritarians. And say if you want our assistance that assistance is going towards the benefit of your country. You're not going have a Marxist economy and you're free up your own people to be able to take control of their own lives. And no longer arrest people and hold them without trial. Or arrest people simply for speaking out against the government.

That foreign aid, has to be used for things like infrastructure, health care, education, economic development, foreign trade. And not be used simply to keep an authoritarian regime that doesn't know how to manage a command and control Marxist economy in power. Because America wouldn't like the regime that replaced the current regime that is in power. And where President Carter comes up short here, even though he had a lot of foreign policy accomplishments as I laid out last week, is that he kept in place the United States policy of subsidizing so-called moderate dictators in order to keep worst regimes from coming to power. Like with the Shah of Iran, which came back to bite him and America, well in the ass to be direct about it in 1979.

President George W. Bush's administration, made democracy the goal in their second term for the developing world and countries that live under dictatorships. I'm a Democrat and obviously I believe in democracy, but democracy by itself shouldn't be the end goal. Authoritarians, come to power through democracy all the time. The Nazis in Germany in the 1930s, the best example of this. What should be the goal here is human rights and freedom for countries that don't have those things. And where America can help here is by promoting freedom and human rights. You don't do that by invading and occupying countries simply because you don't like the current government. But you can do that through foreign aid and trade. And saying we'll help you if that help benefits the people and doesn't just keep the current regime in power.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960