Socialist Party USA: ‘Response to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address’

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

Source:The Daily Times 

“The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him.”

From the Independent Political Report 

“President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.”

From The White House 

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do.

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government.

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt’s party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party’s. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Why Can't America be More Like Canada?'

Source:The Daily Press

If you look at both America and Canada, you see two gigantic countries, the 2nd and 3rd largest countries in the world physically. And in America's case the 3rd largest population in the World with three-hundred-million people. We have basically the same people both ethnically and racially, a lot of people from Europe. But African and Asian minorities, Middle Eastern minorities and in America's case a lot of Latin-American minorities. Canada might have more Asians, especially in British Columbia. America has more Latin-Americans, two of the largest and most developed nations in the World. 

Both countries have strong capitalist economies with a lot of economic freedom. But Canada has a welfare state with a lot of socialism with its welfare state in the economy. But perhaps not as much as Europe. We both love sports and similar sports. We both like football, baseball and hockey. One country loves hockey, hopefully you can figure out which one on your own. The other country is starting to love hockey. We eat similar foods because again we have similar ethnic groups living in our countries. We both speak English and sound similar speaking English, but with slightly different accents. 

America depending on where you live, almost has a distinct accent for every state. And especially every region of the country. Canada perhaps the same for their provinces, but my experience with Canadians, is that they tend to sound like they are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan. To me anyway Canadians sound like they are from the upper Midwest of the United States. Culturally America and Canada have a lot in common, which is why a lot of Americans go to Canada. And why a lot of Canadians come to America, but I would argue that Canadians come to America to work and live. 

Perhaps Canadians come here so they don't have to see blizzards or snow in April and October. Or to do some of the things they see Americans do on TV. Because they get all of our TV Networks and are very familiar with our culture and news. And are constantly reporting our own news and entertainment and sports. As if they don't have enough going on in their own country. But whatever as the saying goes, all news is good news. In America though, unless you have Direct TV or satellite or live in New England or the Northwest, you don't get the Canadian networks. You don't get to see The National from CBC News, which would be like NBC Nightly News in America. 

But Canadians get to see Nightly News, ABC World News, the CBS Evening News etc. We are very similar, which is why America has this old joke. That we see Canada as the 51st State, because if you fly or drive there from the United States, you might not know you're in a different country. Until you see advertising or street signs, something like that. But even though America and Canada are very similar, we are very different, especially politically. I'll bet you anything that the average Canadian knows as much about American politics, thats today's politics than the average American. 

But that most Americans probably don't know a damn thing about Canadian politics. I'm not one of them, I'm fairly familiar with Canadian politics and again because Canadians follow American news. And we are different because Canadians have a universal single payer health care system. Health Insurance provided by their Federal Government at taxpayers expense. And somehow think its crazy that Americans get to decide where to get their own health insurance. And that fifty-million Americans roughly don't even have health insurance, I agree with them on the last part. 

And that America except for our Far-Left and Far Right, has this liberal-libertarian view of politics. Of get government out of my wallet and bedrooms. Where Canadians pay their high tax rates with smiles on their face and celebrate Tax Day. One thing that Canada has on America though, they don't have a Religious-Right. I'm jealous of Canada as American of that. They don't have people that combine their religion with their politics.  America and Canada two great countries, there isn't another country in the world I would want to share a three-thousand mile border with. 

Even a country that says oot, aboot and agenst, oot and aboot, that says please for everything, even if they are cops. That says a as much as Germans say yah. And because of this Canadians would be the last people we would try to deport, not that we really deport anyone, with about fifteen-million illegal immigrants. But as any good friendship goes, we have plenty in common that makes us friends in the first place. But enough differences so we have things that we can learn about each other and reason to stay friends in the future.

The Onion: Did Media Treat Michele Bachmann Unfairly Because She's an Insane Woman

Source:The Daily Press

In many ways its easier to get attention these days, especially in the era of the information technology revolution, by saying things that make you sound like you’re from another planet. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, sound like you’re running for President, of another planet. Who wants to hear a politician say, “I’ll do what I believe is in the best interest of the country. I’ll make decisions based on what I believe is the best thing to do”. Every time there’s a politician or candidate who speaks like that, you can hear insomniacs snoring in the background, getting the best sleep of their lifetimes. Perhaps introducing their brains to sleep for the first time in their lives.

It’s the politicians and candidates, who say things, just to use Michelle Bachmann as an example who says things like, “same-sex marriage is the biggest threat to our national security”. I guess sometime before she said that, the United States won the War on Terror. I could’ve swore the War on Terror was a bigger threat. Or the national debt or deficit, unemployment were bigger threats. Perhaps Representative Bachmann misses the House Intelligence Committee meetings that she’s a member of, that released that information. But perhaps Barack Obama actually is God and fixed all these problems and hearing rumors that President Obama was God in disguise as a human being and President of the United States, was not a rumor, but a fact.

So now the biggest threat to American civilization is actually same- sex marriage. If you’re having a hard time reading that with a straight face, imagine how hard it was to write it. You know with the typing and everything, but hey maybe Representative Bachmann’s gay husband Marcus can fix the same-sex marriage issue, by converting gay people to straight. Its much easier I would say especially in America, because of our size and wealth, 310M people, the largest economy in the world and how far advanced we are technology wise and everything for Mentally Unbalanced people lets say to be nice, to get attention for themselves and whatever they think they are trying to accomplish.

The reason for is this is because of how abnormal the mentally handicapped are and they do and say things, that sane people just wouldn’t say or do. Mitt Romney only gets media attention for one of his speeches, when he says something that makes him seem out of touch. Like when he said he only made 400K$ giving speeches. Well 90% of the country would love to only 400K$ a year. But generally people don’t remember much if anything that Mitt said in one of his speeches.

And one of those reasons is, because Mitt one of the sanest people to ever run for President. The guy is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal, which might be insulting to oatmeal. But when someone lets again use Michelle Bachamann, says something that sounds so far out in left field, or right field in Michelle’s case, that they couldn’t see centerfield with binoculars or a telescope, it gets reported right away. Because its crazy, interesting and provocative. And gives the “mainstream media” something else to make fun of.

If you’re lonely and feel like you’re not receiving your fair share of attention, give a crazy speech, say things like “America should be less Socialist like China”. Take pictures of your sensitive area and post them on Twitter, especially if you’re a Public Official. It will always work and you’ll always get attention for doing, excuse the term doing crazy shit like that. But one thing it just might not be the kind of attention you’re looking for. But as the saying goes, all free media is good media. I know I said no more blogs about Michelle Bachmann until she runs for reelection for House. But this popped in my head.

The Huffington Post: Maegan Carberry: A State of The Union Guide For Socialists and Racists

Source:Free State MD

Maegan Carberry is right, being a Liberal doesn’t make someone a Socialist. And being a Conservati­ve doesn’t make someone a racist. But that should go without saying, but the question is why being a Liberal or Conservative, doesn’t make those people Socialists or Racists. Is because both liberalism and conservatism are based on individual liberty and limited government­. Liberals and Conservati­ves both believe, going from Jack Kennedy to Ron Reagan, that people should be judge as individual­s, not members of groups.

And that people should be able to live their own lives and not be overburden by government­. Through high taxes and government telling people how to live their lives. With limited government­, we don’t have a welfare state, with government trying to take care of us. But a safety net to help people who need it get back on their feet. And with limited government­, we don’t have especially the Federal Government­ trying to prevent same-sex Marriage from becoming law. Or being conservative about all aspects of the federal budget, except for the defense budget. That you have to be fiscally responsible all across the federal budget.

What gets stereotype­d today as liberalism and conservatism, aren’t liberalism and conservatism. But in liberalism­’s case, sort of looks like neo-communism or democratic socialism. Wanting government to take care of people with a King Kong sized superstate there to manage our economic and personal lives for us. Managing our education, health care, health insurance, diet and exercise, what we can watch and how we can talk to people. “That individual freedom is dangerous because people are generally too stupid to manage their own economic and personal lives. That freedom is the freedom to make mistakes at the costs of Big Government. Mr. Uncle Sam, the national parent of America.

In conservatism’s case, it’s really neoconservatism. A mixture of a warped interpretation of Christianity, that you would think would’ve been made up in some Hollywood script, but that there are Americans who take this theocratic ideology seriously and treat it as its real. Mixed in with Martial Law, where personal freedom, things like to the right to privacy, Freedom of Speech that Neoconservatives, disagree with, property rights are essentially outlawed. In the name of protecting the moral fiber, character and security of the superstate. Big government authoritarian nanny statist ideology when it comes personal issues and freedom.

Liberalism is not socialism or communism. And conservatism is not neoconservatism, a theocratic and military authoritarian ideology. Liberalism and conservatism are both anti-statism. Not anti-state, but that the state needs to be limited to doing the things that the only the state can do. Which doesn’t include managing the lives of the people.

Talking Points Memo: Representative Michele Bachmann: We Should be Less Socialist Like China

Source:The Daily Press

About three weeks ago after Representative Michelle Bachmann did Minnesota and the United States a favor by dropping out of the Republican race for president and then announcing a few days later that she wasn’t going to run for reelection to the House. That because of these things and that Michelle Bachmann would hopefully go home go back to the mental hospital, go back to high school and take a class on American history. Take a course about foreign policy and get the help that she needs. So in the future she’ll say less ignorant things and present them as fact.

Well that all sounds like a dream now and after she announced she’s running for reelection to the House. Hopefully House Democrats will give her a tough run this time, especially now that Representative Bachmann is very unpopular. Not only in her home State of Minnesota, but in her House district, thanks to her presidential campaign. After making a short story longer, I told myself that I was going to layoff Representative Bachmann, at least until her general election campaign in the fall. In the House and that’s assuming she wins the Republican primary, that might not be a safe bet after her presidential campaign, which is why she’s so unpopular in Minnesota right now.

So I found another ignorant thing that Representative Bachmann said in one of the November debates. When her presidential campaign was already on life support, something her political strategist Ed Rollins figured out. Which is why he resigned, but she didn’t figure out until January after getting just 5% of the vote in Iowa. During the November debate, Scott Pelley anchor of the CBS Evening News, asked the candidates something about the economy. And basically asked Representative Bachmann what is her economic policy, or something to that effect. She said in her own words, first she goes off about the LBJ Great Society and said that China doesn’t have things like cash transfers and Food Stamps as she called it. It’s no longer called Food Stamps.

And then Representative Bachmann said that “America should become less socialist like China”. Apparently according to Michelle Bachmann, America is more socialist than China. China being a country with state-owned industries. What’s the classic definition of socialism. The state owns the means and production of society. State-owned industries fits that like a glove. Now of course the People’s Republic no longer fits the classic definition of socialism. Which is good for them and the main reason why their economy is now the 2nd largest in the world, sorry Japan. Because they’ve privatized their economy and now have probably the largest growing private sectors in the world.

Representative Bachmann also said that China doesn’t have a welfare state unlike America. This is a person who serves on the House Intelligence Committee by the way. If being intelligent was a requirement to serve on that committee, Michelle Bachmann wouldn’t be qualified to serve on that committee. Article 14 of the P.R. Constitution China’s version of the U.S. Constitution, but obviously a hell of a lot different, states that the state meaning the P.R. Central Government builds and improves a welfare system that corresponds with the level of economic development in the country.

China has a Ministry of Human Resources and social welfare. That oversees a safety net that has programs like, cash transfers. Sounds like welfare or unemployment insurance right. Food assistance, sounds like Food Stamps right. Money for education for people who can’t afford to send their kids to school. Vouchers for health care and I’m sure other things as well. Representative Michelle Bachmann is a three term U.S. Representative from Minnesota, elected in 2006. The year Congressional Democrats took back Congress.

Michelle serves on the House Intelligence Committee, but she knows so much that isn’t true or just makes up things. As she goes along, she’s extremely partisan by nature, so maybe that’s her issue and that’s the closest thing I’ll say to being nice to her. Yet she’s constantly saying things that aren’t true. And hopefully as a result she won’t be back to serve in the 113th Congress next year.

Democracy Now: Video: Amy Goodman Interviews Tavis Smiley & Cornell West: The Rich and the Rest of Us

Source:The FreeState

Tavis Smiley who personally I like, but generally don’t agree with, but who’s someone who I respect, hosted a panel discussion that C-Span, thank God for C-Span, broadcasted on MLK Day on Monday. If you guessed Tavis Smiley was there, you would be correct, but it had Professor Cornel West, progressive activist Michael Moore, financial adviser Suzie Orman and a young women. Who’s name I can’t remember and I didn’t recognize it. 

But I thought what won the panel discussion even though it wasn’t a debate, but hit the nail on the head if you want to use that expression, I would’ve gone farther in what she was saying, but she did a very good job of making points and a case in how to win the War on Poverty. By actually moving people out of poverty, that you generally don’t hear from today's Progressives. Who generally use their time to bash capitalism, or call for more public assistance.

A lot of this discussion was basically about how we can move away from Capitalism and explaining how President Bush basically screwed the American economy. And that President Obama wasn’t progressive enough to fix it. Because he wasn’t in favor of their big government programs. And calling for more Welfare etc, when it comes to poverty. Progressive Socialists tend to be more about giving people in poverty more Welfare. 

More Welfare insurance at taxpayers expense of course. And are more interested in sustaining people in poverty. But this young lady was talking about actually moving people out of poverty. Which is completely different, so they can be self-sufficient and get off of public assistance. And she’s the only person that made this discussion worth watching. the War on Poverty a war that President Johnson declared in 1965 47 years ago. If you were born that year, your Middle Age now.  

And today you might not even remember LBJ as President. But the solutions to finally win this war, are pretty simple, but harder to put into practice. First of all you need a good economy that has strong job growth. We are finally starting to see that now. But to help adults who currently live in poverty whether they are working or on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, is through education and job training. Get them back into school, so they can get themselves the skills they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. That takes money, but would pay for itself in the long run, because we would be creating new taxpayers.

Long-term what we need to be doing to avoid kids living in poverty as adults. Or end up in the corrections system, is to make sure they stay in school. And get a good education, while their parents are going back to school. And to do this we need to reform our public education system. And that gets to better educators and competition inside the public education system, so low-income parents can send their kids to good schools as well. 

Not be forced to send their kids to schools because of where they live. That's called public school choice and we have to do something about our high dropout rate. Encourage kids to stay in school, not drop out and have kids and end up on public assistance. Or get involved in organized crime and in the corrections system. We proved in the 1990s with the Clinton Administration, with Welfare to Work. 

That we can do this, move people out of poverty and into the middle class. By empowering them to get the skills that they need to get a good job and not live on public assistance. To the point that we got our poverty rate down to 13%. I believe a record low for the United States is an approach that we need to get back to.

FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- 'Five Reasons to Keep the Electoral College'

Source:FORA-TV- Professor Daniel Lowenstein: on the Electoral College.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein offers five arguments to maintain the Electoral College as the method for choosing the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.

However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new - The Commonwealth Club of California

Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California's Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."

From FORA-TV

Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in Small Sates are redneck and hillbilly's who don't matter and that their votes don't count, from ignoring them. If you're in a tight presidential race and it's going to come down to a few of states swing States like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there. 

And those voters get to see who'll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppy crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado. 

Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few States in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States. 

We don't live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect, of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it. 

And if that probably takes a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of GOV. George W. Bush. I'm not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic. 

But not to the point where I'm willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there's a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by Popular Vote. 

I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral System as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one State but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn't be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get. 

If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the Electoral Votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don't like their culture and lifestyles.