Constitution Daily: Olivia Fitzpatrick- Vice Presidential Profile Henry Wallace

Source:Constitution Daily

Henry Wallace, is a very important figure in American politics as well as government and I believe in positive ways for the most part. He was in favor of civil rights, equal rights and equal justice, in the 1940s when very few Democrats were and probably most Americans were. But to supporters and followers of Bernie Sanders and Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein he's their political father. He created the vision that they're currently fighting for. A social-democratic or democratic socialist vision that goes farther than the New Deal of that era and even farther than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. He wanted to create a country and government where the central government became the tool to be used to see that no one had to go without anything they needed to live well. Henry Wallace was to the left of Progressive Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt on both economic and foreign policy. And he was FDR's Vice President.

Henry Wallace, didn't believe in fighting the Cold War against Russia. He didn't see communism as some big evil threat to American freedom. Unlike most Progressive Democrats at the time like FDR, Harry Truman and many others. Similar to Bernie Sanders with the Communist Republic of Cuba, Wallace might of founded aspects of communism that he least respected. As it related to economic policy and the welfare state, even as he criticized it for the last lack of human and individual rights. So he certainly wasn't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party back then, or wouldn't be today. Wallace ran third-party for president in 1948, because he couldn't have beaten President Truman in the Democratic primary season. Again Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, have taken his role as the leader for democratic socialism in America, because there isn't a major party that represents them. They're trying to build that movement in and outside of the Democratic Party.

Thanks to Henry Wallace, you have the emergence of the New-Left if the mid and late 1960s. That had both social-democratic and communist factions in it. That was opposed to the Vietnam War, but the Cold War, the American military and American capitalism. That wanted to create a society where government was bigger and more centralized within the Federal Government. And was used to provide the basic benefits that people needed to live well. Instead of receiving those benefits from their employers, or making those choices for them in the private sector. People like Tom Haydon and Bill Ayers and groups like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground, represented the New-Left of this era. And flooded the Democratic Party with all of their members and made it possible for someone like Democratic Socialist Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders of his time) to run for president in 1972 and win the Democratic nomination. Henry Wallace, has made a huge impact on American politics and deserves credit for that.

Reform Party USA: 'Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley'

Source:Reform Party USA- Ross Perot's creation.

"The National Reform Party Secretary, Nicholas Hensley, has been making the rounds. His recent interviews have been highly rated by his peers, and were well received by anti-establishment activists. After some consideration, we have decided to post a sample interview on the National Website.

What is the Reform Party?

The Reform Party is a moderate, centrist and populist party that is neither liberal nor conservative. It sits in the middle of the political spectrum as opposition to the Democrats and Republicans. It was formed in 1995 by followers of Ross Perot. Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election.

It was founded on the basis that the political establishment was corrupt. It seeks to reform government by getting special interest money out of politics, and limiting the power of lobbyists. We also want to ending the practice of gerrymandering, and open ballots for third parties and independents. As far as ethics reform, we want to force lawmakers to adhere to a set of laws – not just a set of rules.

Before the Republicans passed their Contract with America, the Reform Party already proposed a balanced budget amendment. We want to reform the government’s accounting system, stop the practice of keeping some items off the books, and create a plan to get America back into the black in the next four years.

Economically we want to reform trade deals, so that the manufacturing sector becomes a job creator for the working and middle classes. Even though we advocate for tax and regulatory reform on the manufacturing sector, those issues are minor compared to the need for stop trade by reforming NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO." 

From Reform Party USA 

When I was growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Democratic Party was supposed to be the left of center progressive party in America and the Republican Party was supposed to be the right of center party in America. The Democrats and Republicans have always had their fringes, but not to the point where they could decide who the party nominates, especially for governor, Senate, and certainly not President. Perhaps in gerrymandered U.S. House districts, but not where someone would have to run statewide or nationally, in competitive, diverse states. 

The reason why we have a Reform Party USA, is pretty much the same reason why we have a Libertarian Party. The Democrats moved left in the mid and late 1990s and especially 2000s. The Republicans have been moving right at least since the late 1960s, but by time the mid 90s comes around, the Christian-Rights was no longer a fringe part of the party, but a core portion of it's base. Which meant Center-Right, more fiscally and economically minded, conservative voters, who aren't interested in the culture wars, were left without a major political party. 

Reform Party USA might call itself a centrist populist party, but that's not Ross Perot's movement. That's really no one's movement. American voters regardless of political philosophy, like to know where the candidates and politicians stand on the issues, even the controversial ones, before deciding who to vote for. And if you are a so-called Reformer, but you don't know what you think and your position is: "Elect me, because I'll do what's best for the country and figure out what the right policies are once I'm elected." you are going to put the voters asleep into a deep coma before they even have a chance to vote for you. 

Ross Perot was a pretty conservative guy, at least economically and fiscally, and even when it came to national security. Most of the people who voted for him in 1992 were either Republicans or were once Center-Right Republicans. Not mushy-middle centrists, who didn't know what they believed on the issues. 

With the Republican Party as far to the right as it is today, the center-right in the country is a great place for the Reform Party to be and for real Conservative Republicans to make their new home, especially the Never-Trumpers who've left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump and his movement.

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

Reason: Why Republicans Should Vote Libertarian- The GOP Case For Gary Johnson

Why should Republicans should vote Libertarian this election? Well why should Conservative Republicans and my mean Conservative-Libertarian Republicans vote Libertarian this election? Because the Republican nominee is a big government Republican. Who couldn't care less about the Constitution if it limits his power, who was once a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat on social issues, before we had an African-American president. And the Democratic nominee is a Progressive Democrat who would raise taxes on the wealthy and has big government leaning when it comes to national security and civil liberties as it relates to the War on Terror. The Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, will be on the ballot in all fifty-states. If the entire Never Tump in movement in the Republican Party goes to Gary Johnson and gets in the debates, voting against Donald Trump, doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is the next president. You could prevent both Hillary and The Donald, from winning the Electoral College and perhaps nominating Gary as president in the House of Representatives.

If you're a Republican who believes that there's too much power with the Federal Government and not enough power with the states and with individuals, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, is you're only choice. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both believe in fiscal responsibility, low taxes and decentralization of government. They're also against big government all together and don't want to take big government out of the economy it put it in people's homes. So the Christian-Right, doesn't have much interest in voting for the Johnson-Weld ticket. Nor does big government national security Neoconservatives, or the Alt-Right, who represents the entire Far-Right in America. But the Republican Party at it's core is still a party that believes in economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government. And even if you don't go with Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, that doesn't necessarily mean you want government to enforce your cultural values on the rest of the country. And force everyone else to live the same way.

The case against Donald Trump and for the Libertarian Party, is a case in favor of limited government . And against someone who believes he should have all the power and tells people he'll fix all of their problems for them, if he has no opposition and no one questions anything that he does. It's a case against big government and right-wing authoritarian fascism, against Vladimir Putin. And a case in favor of limited government and checks and balances. That the executive can't do everything on their own. That we have a Congress, judiciary and two-party system for good reasons. Because we can't afford to trust one person and generally one party to govern this huge diverse country by themselves. You don't have 17 presidential candidates and a divided Republican Party, no way Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee for president. And perhaps The Donald runs as an Independent or starts a nationalist party or something. But he is there presidential nominee and Conservative-Libertarians have a better option for president.

FOX News: ‘The Rise of The Alt-Right Movement’

Source:FOX News- Alt-Right leader Jared Taylor.

“Conservative movement embraces the Trump campaign; Doug McKelway takes a closer look for ‘Special Report'”

From FOX News

Jared Taylor: “We think America as an identity. People who are descendent from the founding stock, have a right to resist this possession.” He was talking about some theory that America basically belongs to anyone who can get here, regardless from who they are and where they come from. And he obviously disagrees with that.

You don’t have to take my word when you hear someone call Mr. Taylor what’s called a White Nationalist. Not my term, but that’s for the folks that term is for, which is for people who believe that America belongs to the Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other Northern Europeans. Not to everyone else.

What is the Alt-Right in America and what the hell is it doing linked with the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump?

The Republican Party that is supposed to be the Center-Right party in America and the party of Lincoln, the party of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed the African slaves in America, instead of calling for them to be deported back to Africa or even murdered. Which is what segments of the Alt-Right in America like the KKK have called for. That is the subject of this piece and since this movement is linked to the GOP nominee for president Donald Trump, it’s time to talk about this.

The Al-Right, is a collection of European-American, primarily Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent German-American nationalist groups. Almost exclusively believe that America belongs to Protestants who come from Britain and Northern Europe originally, west of Scandinavia. They aren’t just anti-African or anti-Latino or anti-Middle Eastern or anti-Asian. They’re anti-Jewish, they’re anti-Slav, they’re anti-Mediterranean and even anti-Catholic. Regardless of the person’s ethnicity or race. The Alt-Right are predominantly men and see women as their pets.

The Democratic Party, has the Far-Left, or New-Left (if you want to be nice) but the Republican Party has their own fringe movement as well. The Far-Right which again are Northern-European Protestant-American Nationalists, who see America as only belonging to them. And everyone else as Un-American who don’t have a right to exist in the United States.

So why would the Republican presidential nominee want to have anything to do with people like this?

Why would Steve Bannon who runs an Alt-Right publication like Breitbart, be associated with his campaign?

Why does Donald Trump, say things and take policy positions that get endorsed by Alt-Rightists like Ann Coulter and even David Duke?

I’ve argued before that Donald Trump doesn’t even want to be President of the United States, or doesn’t have much of an idea how to become president. Which would explain why he would take this route to the presidency since the Alt-Right represents a small and even shrinking population in America.

But the Trump Campaign, whatever you think of it, does represent forgotten Americans in this country. Who are predominantly Caucasian, Protestant, Catholic and male. People who believe America is going downhill since the 1960s when multiculturalism became mainstream and America started to become the giant melting pot that we are today.

Not saying that all Trump supporters are Alt-Rightists, but those people are not just part of his base, but now part of his campaign. Which is why The Donald is now losing Republican men and women, who are conservative even, but aren’t racists. And true Conservatives aren’t racist or bigoted anyway.

The Trump Campaign represents the America of the 1950s and Donald Trump is selling a recipe and saying that he can return this America to his supporters. Where English-Americans and Protestants and men from these groups, essentially ran America, with everyone else essentially serving as the servants of these people.

Even if Donald Trump is not a racist and bigot himself, he’s guilty of trying to sell Americans a vision that he can’t create and produce. And asking his supporters to pay up front whether The Donald has any real plan and ability to deliver what he’s selling. Donald Trump, is not a politician, but a liar and demagogue, which is even worst. And his voters are buying spoiled meat upfront as a result. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Understanding Society: Daniel Little- 'Liberalism and Hate-Based Extremism'

Source:Understanding Society- A Ku Klux Klan rally, unfortunately in Washington. 

"How should a democratic society handle the increasingly virulent challenges presented by hate groups, anti-government extremists, and organizations that encourage violence and discrimination against others in society? Should extremist groups have unlimited rights to advocate for their ideologies of hatred and antagonism against other groups within a democracy?"

From Understanding Society 

"Let's see how evil the Republican Party became after the failed attempt of the Dixiecrats to run the show.  A list of Dixiecrat Senators and Governors; which ones switched to the Republican Party." 

Source:Frank Kebreau- U.S. Senator John Stennis (Democrat, Mississippi) one of the members of the right-wing Dixiecrat and Southern Caucus in Congress.

From Frank Kebreau

With all due respect to Daniel Little and I am going to respond to what he said in his own piece, because he did make some good points about liberalism, but this is really a response to what CNN pro-Donald Trump political analyst Jeff Lord, had said about the KKK, being the military wing of the Democratic Party. And saying that Liberals and Democrats, are responsible for slavery and racism to non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Americans in America.

From the start of the Democratic Party that Thomas Jefferson created two-hundred years ago, up until the 1970s and the 1980s, the Democratic Party had a southern right-wing in it. They were called Dixiecrats and were people who believed that Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, were superior to all other races in America, especially superior to African-Americans and American-Indians. 

The Dixiecrat Democratic Party back then created the KKK and other European-American nationalist groups in America. Who saw their mission as defending Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxon Protestants, from people they saw as Un-American and even as animals. 

The Dixiecrat Democrats owned the African slaves in the 1700s and 1800s. And it took the American Civil War of the 1960s to end slavery in America. And forced Dixiecrats to give up their slaves who were kidnapped from their native Africa. 

So to say today's Democratic Party a party that is made up of Liberals, Progressives and now even Social Democrats, (thanks to Bernie Sanders) is responsible for slavery and other forms of bigotry in America, is nonsense. (To be nice about it)

Remember, Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1968 and the early 1970s, well if you weren't born yet of course you don't. But Dick Nixon wasn't recruiting southern progressive and liberal Democrats, to vote for him and join the Republican Party. He recruited right-wing Dixiecrats, who were still a large part of the Democratic Party back then, to vote for him and vote Republican. Where they've remained ever since. 

The Republican Party is not the party of slavery and racism. (At least not historically) The Democratic Party that backed slavery and racism back in the day, no longer exists. The Dixiecrats are now Dixiereps, or Dixielics, but they're right-wing Republicans today. 

People like Strom Thurmond and his followers who once was a Dixiecrat, but then moved to Republican Party over the civil rights debates in the 1960s. Along with his followers and Southern right-wing politicians that came after him. Like Trent Lott, who served in Congress for 34 years. (Both House and Senate) Phil Gramm, again another long time member of Congress in both chambers. Was once a Democrat and today is a Republican. Senator Dick Shelby today, was once a Dixiecrat and now is a Republican Senator from Alabama.

As far as what Daniel Little said about liberalism and extremism: I agree with him, because Liberals believe people have the right to believe whatever they believe and even express their beliefs at will. Short of falsely libeling, threatening violence against people, or inciting violence in general. Where Liberals draw the line is how people interact with each other. 

You can think whatever you want about someone, but we don't believe you have the right to hurt someone simply because you don't like them, or disagree with them, or even see them as a bigot. Or hurt innocent people in general from your own actions whether they are intentional or unintentional. 

Mr. Little, gave an excellent and clear definition of liberalism there. The title of this piece might sound like Mr. Little and myself are implying that liberalism is hate-based extremism, which of course is false. What he did and I'm doing here is laying out the liberal position when it comes to extremism and the right for even bigots to believe what they believe. And everyone has the right to free speech in America.

Euro News: '50 Year Anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' Speech'

Source:Euro News- with a look at the 1960s American civil rights movement.

"Fifty years ago on August 28 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech at the foot...

Fifty years ago on August 28 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. 

A pastor and the figurehead of the civil rights movement in the US, King used the Bible and the US Declaration of Independence to help shape those iconic words.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," said King in the most memorable part of the speech.

The US abolished slavery in 1865 after the Civil War. However, the fact remained that in many states black people were still treated as second-class citizens. 

Founded in the same year as slavery was abolished, the Ku Klux Klan created a climate of terror for black people. In addition, there was racial segregation in the south.

John W Franklin, with the Smithsonian's National Museum of African-American History & Culture described the segregation in the US capital.

"Right here in Washington there were no restaurants in this part of town where I could have gone or my parents could have gone to eat. None of the hotels in this part of town would have accepted African-Americans as guests. None of the hospitals would have accepted African-Americans as patients. There was a small section of black (Washington) DC where there were banks and stores and only in those stores could African Americans try on clothes," said Franklin.

Resistance to segregation was mainly organised by Baptist churches. Martin Luther King was the head of the congregation at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. 

A black woman being arrested in Montgomery for not giving up her seat on the bus for a white passenger, led to a campaign by black people refusing to use the city's bus service. 

That woman was Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King helped organise the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott.

King encouraged nonviolent protests such as sit-ins, marches and boycotts of companies that discrimated against black people. 

The civil rights leader was jailed during the 1963 campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, where desegregation was being strongly resisted by many white people. 

"In May of that year - in Birmingham, Alabama - there had been a children's campaign where elementary and high school students left class to go demonstrate in the streets," recalled Franklin.

"This is also the dawn of television, not only in the United States but across the world, and the images that Americans saw, black white, Latino, Asian, and how these children were attacked by fire hoses, adults were attacked by these police dogs, really seared the nation's conscience," he explained.

The famous speech, which became a high point for the civil rights movement, came during what was official known as the 'March on Washington For Jobs and Freedom'. 

President John F. Kennedy, who had spoken out in favour of civil rights, was assassinated three months later.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The US federal government now had the power to end segregation in the southern states and it became easier for black people to vote.

King was shot dead on the balcony of the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee on April 3, 1968.

Johnson announced a national day of mourning three days later on April 7.

A week of race riots in several US cities after King's death was contrary to the nonviolence he had advocated while he was alive, but many black people felt there was still a long way to go.

Many still do, according to Franklin." 

From Euro News 

"Euronews (styled on-air in lowercase as euronews) is a European television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and covers world news from a European perspective.

The majority of Euronews (88%) is owned by Portuguese investment management firm Alpac Capital,[2][3][4] with the rest partly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations.

It is a provider of livestreamed news, which can be viewed in most of the world via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." Dr. Martin Luther King, the leader of the African-American civil and equal rights movement of the 1960s. 

Dr. King was not the only leader, but the leader as far as his importance and what he accomplished for that community. And I'm just quoting what he said in his 1963 March on Washington in his I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King, at the very least wanted an America where his family and the African-American community, would no longer be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. 

Even if Dr. King he didn't mean that for America as a whole, let's apply it to the rest of the country anyway. Let's create an America where individuals are judged simply as that, as individuals and not members of this group or any other group. But simply as people and what they have to offer and where they come up short simply as individuals. That is what the vision  of a color and race-blind country would be.

Whether someone is racist towards one race of American or another, they're still racists. If you judge people simply by their race and decide they should be denied access in America simply because of their race, even if your attentions are good, you're guilty of racism. No matter what race you're a member of and what race or races you intend to benefit and what race or races you seek to deny. Racism is the opposite of a color and race-blind country. That is not Dr. King's dream, but the exact opposite of it. 

How well and how better off would we be as a country if racism and other forms of bigotry, whether they'r targeted against people simply because of their ethnicity religion, gender, or sexuality. We're not talking about levels of poverty that we are today if racism is simply not part of the picture. Because no one would be denied schools and employment, simply because of their race or any other characteristic that's part of their DNA. And to say that this group of Americans has been denied access because of their race, now we have to benefit those people by denying other races, is also racism. But from a different direction.

Racism even if it's used to benefit other groups at the expense of different groups, is still racism. And goes against Dr. King's dream of a color and race-blind country. What we should do instead is make Dr. King's dream a reality. And outlaw the use of racism when it's used to deny any American access, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality. Whether it comes from the private sector or government. And instead don't automatically notice one's complexion when you first seem them and think they must be this way, because this is how they look. But instead see a person and someone you can either get along with and work with or not, because of how you individually relate with each other as people, but because of how you were born and how you look. 

That I believe is the America that Dr. King wanted an America that worked for everybody based on what you did for it and what you did for yourself to make yourself the most productive and successful person you can be. But not because of how you were born and your racial characteristics. 

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

ABC News: World News Tonight-Colin Kaepernick Refuses to Stand During National Anthem

Source:The Daily Review

In life there are followers and there are leaders. There are trend-setters who would be leaders and there are people who follow whatever the latest trend is who would be faddists. Celebrity culture and pro sports is no different, is a very accurate reflection of this. Celebrities feel the need to be cool to the point they'll follow things and claim to support things that in many cases they don't even seem to understand. Ben Affleck, from a couple years ago where he essentially accused Bill Maher of being a racist, because Maher made critical, but accurate statements about Islam, is a perfect example of this. Even though Islam is not a race, but a religion and Muslims can be anyone of any race, since Islam is not a race, but a religion. With today's social media and broader media culture, things can become hot and go or go viral, in an instant. And when that happens, many celebrities feel the need to be associated with it even if they don't understand what they're associating with. Colin Kaepernick, to me at least seems like the latest celebrity faddist and getting on the Black Lives Matter train.

This is not a debate about whether there's racism and bigotry, as well as oppression in America. Because of course there is and we've had as a nation more that two-hundred years of it. This to me is a debate about whether a multi-millionaire San Francisco 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick, is the right spokesperson to address this issue. Who'll be paid eleven-million-dollars by the 49ers this season to be there starting QB. A man who has taken advantage of every opportunity he's had in America as an individual to live in freedom and become filthy rich. Oppression in America, again goes back more than two-hundred years starting with American-Indians. And then Africans being kidnapped from Africa and brought over to be the slaves of European-Americans who the land of the American-Indians. To women of all races not having the right to vote in America until a hundred-years ago. To Jewish and other European immigrants, being denied access in America by Anglo-Saxons, simply because their ethnicity and religion was different from English-Americans. To Latinos and Asians as well. With the Japanese, as well as German and Italian-Americans, being kidnapped and forced into concentration camps. Because the U.S. Government saw them as traitors during World War II.

Colin Kaepernick, has been in the NFL since 2012 and has been a millionaire his whole career. America didn't wake up to oppression when the Black Lives Matter moment started in 2014. We've known about it for over two-hundred-years. That is anyone who took and passed American history in high school. Mr. Kaepernick has had all this time to let his thoughts and views be known about racism and oppression in America. And waits till now when the Black Lives Matter becomes popular and not only that, but isn't putting himself at risk here at all. The 49ers won't cut him over this, because standing for the national anthem is voluntary. And the City of San Francisco is a capital of fads and trends and pop culture and leftist hippies who applaud anyone who takes on anyone they see as 'The Man.' If Mr. Kaepernick loses his job this season, it will have nothing to do with the fact that he supposedly took a stand against oppression. But that he once again failed to perform, and the 49ers have another mediocre or bad season. And head coach Chip Kelly decides to go in a different direction as a result.

Colin Kaepernick, showed no more courage in not standing for a national anthem for a country that has given him no much opportunity as someone who is African-American, to be very successful, than millions of teenagers who bought and wore Malcolm X hats in the early 1990s when the Malcolm X movie came out. Claiming to support a man they probably never even heard of before that movie came out. And perhaps don't have much knowledge about who Minister Malcolm is today. Someone who I have a lot of respect for an learned a lot about. What Mr. Kaepernick has done here instead is make a fashion statement. And use the national anthem of a country that's given him so much opportunity to be as successful as he had, has his target and launching point. Which makes him not different from people who eat whatever the latest hit dish is, or where whatever outfit, or claim to be behind whatever the latest movement or celebrity is. So of course he has the Freedom of Speech (even in the NFL) to do what he did. But he's nothing more than an opportunist when it comes to oppression and fashion statements.