Public Resource: 'FDR Compilation 2 Great Depression/New Deal'

Source:Public Resource- Frank D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) being inaugurated as the 32nd POTUS, in 1933.

"FDR Compilation 2 Great Depression/New Deal - FDR Presidential Library 1933 - Video 257 - From the Pare Lorentz Center at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. NLR 201-29-5 NLR 201-29-6 NLR 201-30-1 NLR 201-30-2 NLR 201-30-3 Series of newsreels including FDR starts construction of San Fransisco Oakland Bridge New industrial codes FDR visits CCC camp John Roosevelt on his pony FDR asks for cooperation with NRA Nation unites to support NRA Big companies endorse Blue Eagle flies over US NRA spirit sweeps the Nation FDR returns from a cruise and is greeted by Anna Dall and children. Boy Scouts give FDR a headdress FDR at the Dutchess County Fair FDR at Vassar Sistie and Buzzie see FDR off FDR says NRA is working. Americans shop in Blue Eagle stores. FDR addresses leaders on relief for the needy Cheaper power from the TVA FDR rides through NYC The Fighting President Parts 1 and 2 J Ramsey McDonald Archival footage from the FDR Presidential Library." 

From Public Resource

PBS: A World of Ideas- Bill Moyers Interviewing Noam Chomsky (1988)

Source:PBS- Bill Moyers & professor Noam Chomsky in 1988.

“Taken from Bill Moyers program “A World of Ideas” aired on PBS back in 1988.

I do not own the rights to this content.” 

From Pink Of 

Last week I was in a debate on YouTube (of all places) about libertarianism. We were commenting on a video about Professor Noam Chomksy and I commented on it, saying he was a Libertarian Socialist.

I understand that people not familiar with the term, like the person I was talking to on YouTube, that Libertarian Socialist might sound like an Oxymoron, sort of like jumbo shrimp, or Conservative Communist. (If there is such a thing) Libertarians are always arguing in favor decreasing the size of the state. And that the current state that we already have is way too big and unconstitutional. Socialists (at least in America) are always arguing in favor of increasing the size of government (especially at the national level) even when they argue in favor of cutting national defense and law enforcement.

When this person saw my comment on YouTube, this person said that basically that Noam Chomsky couldn’t be a Libertarian because he’s a Socialist and people like Ron Paul etc are real Libertarians. I’m guessing this person describes his politics as libertarian, but doesn’t seem to fully understand his own political ideology.

I told the person that I talking to that Professor Chomksy isn’t a Classical Libertarian, but a Libertarian Socialist. Big believer in social freedom and that we should be free to live our own lives. But that the state has to be big enough, with a welfare state to meet the needs of the country. Which is what Libertarian Socialism is. So a Libertarian Socialist would be against things like the War on Drugs and America expanding its power in the world, trying to police the world, big believer in civil liberties, against what’s called the Military Industrial Complex and what’s called the Prison Industrial Complex.

Libertarian Socialists would be against things like private prisons and for things like legalizing narcotics, especially marijuana, that pornography and gambling should both be legal, even prostitution. That the state shouldn’t try to police people from themselves, but regulate how we interact with each other.

Libertarian socialism is a different form of socialism (to state the obvious) in the sense that even though they both tend to agree on economic policy, but tend to disagree on some key personal choice social issues.

Libertarian Socialists don’t believe that hate speech should be illegal, or that people should be subjected to civil action based on hate speech. Again, as long as people aren’t threatening to hurt or harm each other.

Today’s so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) do believe hate speech should be regulated. The Westboro Church case of 2011, is a pretty good example of that. So-called Progressives tend to believe that gambling should be illegal as well and perhaps even prostitution and certain forms of pornography. There are leftists that are Statists (communist-lite, perhaps) not just on economic policy, but social issues as well. Libertarian Socialists are individualists on social issues. There’s diversity in the so-called progressive movement.

There’s diversity in the Socialists movement to the point, that now there are Leftists like Noam Chomsky that describe their politics as Libertarian Socialist. Socialist on economic and foreign policy, as well as national security. But liberal-libertarian on social issues.

There’s a blog called the Progressive Libertarian. I’m friends with people on Facebook and outside of Facebook that call their politics libertarian socialist. And you have Socialists who are collectivist on economic policy but some key social issues as well. So when they get labeled nanny statists by the right-wing and Liberals like myself.

You can see why I would describe Professor Chomsky’s politics as a combination of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, or perhaps just Bernie Sanders. Someone whose a Socialist-Liberal, or Libertarian-Socialist. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salon Magazine: Robert Reich: Europe's Austerity Recession'

Source:Robert Reich- left-wing political economist.

"Europe is in recession.

Britain’s Office for National Statistics confirmed on Wednesday that in the first quarter of this year Britain’s economy shrank .2 percent, after having contracted .3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011. (Officially, two quarters of shrinkage equal a recession.) On Monday, Spain officially fell into recession for the second time in three years. Portugal, Italy and Greece are already basket cases, and it seems highly likely France and Germany are also contracting.

Why should we care? Because a recession in the world’s third-largest economy (Britain), combined with the current slowdown in the world’s second-largest (China), spells trouble for the world’s largest.

Remember – it’s a global economy. Money moves across borders at the speed of an electronic impulse. Wall Street banks are enmeshed in a global capital network extending from Frankfurt to Beijing. That means that, notwithstanding their efforts to dress up balance sheets, the biggest U.S. banks are more fragile than they’ve been at any time since 2007." 

From Salon Magazine

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: 2nd Bill of Rights Speech (1944)

Source:Kill Will- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) talking about his proposal for a 2nd Bill of Rights, in 1944.

Source:FreeState MD 

"This is FDR's proposed second Bill of Rights that was filmed after he delivered his State of the Union Address via radio on January 11, 1944." 

From Kill Will

Source:FreeState MD- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) talking about his proposal for a 2nd Bill of Rights, in 1944.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in 1933 he obviously inherited the Great Depression and created the New Deal to respond to it. By the early 1940s, we were committed to World War II thanks to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany murdering European Jews. 

President Roosevelt created the New Deal, we get out of the Great Depression by the early 1940s, we win World War II by 1944-45 and President Roosevelt was looking to complete his Presidency. 

FDR was President for twelve years, 1933-45 and had plenty of time to figure out what to do with it. And he decided to build on the New Deal, which he called the 2nd Bill of Rights. Which has also been called the Fair Deal, which was about economic security for all Americans.

FDR wanted to create things like national health insurance, perhaps national healthcare as well. Education reform, perhaps a national higher education system. And all the economic rights, like a right to a good job, a right to a living wage, a right to health care and health insurance, a right to a pension. 

Europe already had the welfare state, created that post-World War II, which is essentially what President Roosevelt was trying to do here in America. But once you guarantee that all Americans have a right to a good job and other things like that, it makes it very difficult to remove unproductive workers. As long as they are not stealing or abusing coworkers and doing those sorts of things, because they now have a right to that job. Like someone would have the right to free speech and other things.

For any of these economic rights to be real, they need to be part of the U.S. Constitution. Which they currently are not, otherwise they can always be removed just by statue. And President Roosevelt was never successful in accomplishing that. What he should’ve focused on, was creating an economic system where everyone would have the opportunity to be successful based on what they contribute to society and that means quality education for everyone. Not guaranteeing everyone in America economic security, simply for being alive.

Salon: Troy Williams: ‘When Mormons Were Socialists’

Source:Salon Magazine- if Mitt Romney is a Socialist, then I'm a Hippie Evangelical, living in Mecca, who only eats meat and speaks Japanese.

Source:FreeState MD 

“You are cursed because of your riches!”

It was a bummer message that nobody wanted to hear. Samuel the Lamanite stood alone atop the great wall of the city of Zarahemla to warn the inhabitants of their pending destruction.

Now you have probably never heard of this Samuel, nor the capital city that was once the center of the Nephite nation. But Mitt Romney certainly has. In 6 BC, as the story goes, somewhere on the American continent, the inhabitants of this mythic city had grown decadent. There were extreme class divisions. Politicians were corrupt. The government disregarded the sick and poor.

Sound familiar?

God had called Samuel to essentially Occupy Zarahemla, to stand up and speak out against corporate greed and wealth accumulation. For his trouble, he was promptly thrown out the front gates. Undeterred, he bravely scaled the city’s exterior wall, evading a barrage of arrows and stones to stand defiant. He offered Zarahemla a choice: repent or be destroyed by God. Like any of us who have ever witnessed the ranting of a doomsday prophet, the Nephites couldn’t be bothered. Four hundred years later, Samuel’s prophecy would sorely come to pass. After decades of perpetual wars and extreme environmental upheavals, the inhabitants of Zarahemla were wiped completely off the continent and out of history.” 

From Salon Magazine 

Hopefully this is not a news flash for anyone, but I’m not an expert on religion. I’m also not ten-feet tall, if anyone is wondering that as well. I’m especially not an expert Mormonism, which is probably one reason why I’m Agnostic. A devout Agnostic (if there’s such a thing) but what little I do know about Mormonism, is extremely little, as small as Danny DeVito (which is probably only enough to fill up a bottle cap) that there is a communitarian aspect to Mormonism. That they live together in compounds, that sort of thing.

To suggest that Mormons are Socialists and they believe all people should live this way, have multiple spouses (at least for men) that sort of thing, is a big stretch. The only socialist religion out there (if you want to call it a religion) would be Atheism, or really militant or fundamentalist Atheism that you see on the Far-Left. The belief that there is no God and today’s so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) tend to be Atheist. The closest thing we have to a socialist religion in America would be what is supposed to pass as progressivism today, which is another way of saying democratic socialism.

Today’s socialism really, is a very collectivist, communitarian, share and share alike philosophy: “That we are only as strong as our weakest link. That we need a strong, large centralized, bloated, I mean big government to mandate, I mean ensure economic equality in America. That we don’t have rich, middle or poor people. That we are all the same and equal”. That’s what progressivism is supposed to be today from today’s so-called Progressives. And if this was a religion, it would be a socialist religion.

And as much as today’s, well Socialists in America, may complain or hate religion, they have as much faith and belief in the state, especially the federal state to take care of and look after and manage the people’s well-being, as the Religious-Right believes Jesus will do those things for the people. The Religious-Left in America (and yes, there is such a thing) to call Mormonism a socialist religion or to link Mitt Romney to socialism at any point, is a stretch and pretty humorous.

Calling Mitt Romney a Socialist, is like calling people who have salad with their steaks, a vegetarian. A blind person wouldn’t believe that because they could smell the beef: “Where’s the beef, right in front of my nose.” But people are welcome to say and believe anything they want, in a liberal democracy, including Socialists who wished we weren’t a liberal democracy. And if anything Socialists have more freedom to express themselves in our liberal democracy, than in a social democracy because of our liberal First Amendment.

Real Time With Bill Maher: ‘Rosen-Gate: Just The Latest In Stupid, Non-Consequential, Meaningless Controversies’

Source:Mediate- Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“It’s time to play everyone’s favorite game: DISPROPORTIONATE OUTRAGE AT SOMETHING PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT! Tonight’s topic: Hilary Rosen-Gate! Everyone in the media has been absolutely obsessed with talking about this one comment made on CNN by a Democrat who doesn’t even have any strong ties to the Obama campaign. So naturally, this topic made its way into the discussion on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight. 

RELATED: Ann Romney Responds to Hilary Rosen: ‘I Know What It’s Like To Struggle’

Maher brought up Mitt Romney‘s problem in trying to get women to support him and the fact that he currently trails President Obama in that demographic. Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell said this was because Romney and his fellow Republicans “want to go back to the 1960s” and revisit issues like contraception that she thought had already been dealt with in the United States. David Stockman quipped that the Republicans were still stuck in the 19th century on women’s issues. Conservative writer Matthew Continetti pointed out that Romney can win the general election if he just keep the focus on the economy. 

Maher brought up the statistic that a significant number of jobs lost in the recession were women’s jobs, and asked if that was mainly due to “Republican policies.” He argued that Obama was actually fighting to keep the jobs that are mostly occupied by women, like schoolteachers. Continetti noted that the Republicans. 

From Mediate 

“Hilary Rosen apologized for a comment questioning Ann Romney’s qualifications to advise Mitt on women’s economic issues. Thursday, April 12, 2012.”

Source:Absolutely Definite- Democratic strategist Hillary Rosen, on The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer.

From Absolutely Definite 

This is not Hillary Rosen’s big mouth or feet. Just an example of what politicians and their employees sound like when they speak a lot and are desperate to win. Which are people with big foot in the mouth disease, who say the first thing in their head that they think can help themselves or their bosses. 

Source:The Daily Journal- This is Hillary Rosen when talking about Ann Romney.

I’ve gone out of my way to avoid blogging about Hillary Rosengate (as Talking Points Memo coined it this week)  because it was one of the dumbest things I’ve heard said in American politics. Which is saying something, I mean we had eight years of George W. Bush as President.

Dumb thing to say especially coming from one of the best political strategists and analysts in the business today in Hillary Rosen. Both Democrats and Republicans would acknowledge that. So dumb to the point that after Hillary Rosen made her statement saying that “Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life” on CNN’s AC360 on Wednesday night, she ends up apologizing for it on the CNN Morning Show on Thursday.

The Democratic Leadership goes out of their way to make it clear that they disagree with what Rosen said. The White House makes it clear that Hillary Rosen doesn’t work for them, or for the Obama reelection campaign. Thanks to Rick Santorum who’s turned out to be a year around Christmas Gift for the Democratic Party, as well as for comedians, bloggers and political satirists, Democrats have kicked butt when it comes to female voters in 2012.

The Democratic Party has been kicking Republican Butt, especially Mitt Romney’s, when it comes to female voters, as CNN political analyst Gloria Borger said. “Mitt Romney doesn’t have a gender gap with women, but a gender gulf”, or gender canyon. Something to that effect. In others words: a huge deficit among female voters.

President Obama was already having a bad week to begin with from last Friday’s jobs report that showed job growth slowing. And Hillary Rosen gives the Romney campaign a gift from God. Something positive to talk about, their support for motherhood. I mean seriously who’s against Motherhood, I mean that would be like hating freedom, or sex or sleep, anything else where most Americans absolutely love.

To suggest that you’re in favor of motherhood, which was what the Democratic Leadership was saying post Hillary Rosen’s comments, is like saying you support having a strong country where everyone can get a job that needs one. That you’re against crime, especially murder and you hate racism. These things are so obvious, that you shouldn’t have to try to convince people of your positions.

Hillary Rosen is the big foot in the mouth that the Republican Party has been waiting for ever since they decided that Mitt Romney should be their presidential nominee and Rick Santorum should be his main challenger. They figuring that if: “We are going to have to foot in the mouth’s running for president, Democrats should have at least one. And I mean a really big one since we have two of them for both legs.”

Robert Reich: 'We're Turning America Into a Giant Casino'

Source:Kepler's Literary Foundation- left-wing political communist Robert Reich.

"Anyone who says you can get rich through gambling is a fool or a knave. Multiply the size of the prize by your chance of winning it and you'll always get a number far lower than what you put into the pot. The only sure winners are the organizers -- casino owners, state lotteries and con artists of all kinds.

Yet America is now opening the floodgates to organized gambling.

In December, the Department of Justice announced it was reversing its position that all Internet gambling was illegal.

That decision is about to create a boom in online gambling. New Jersey is close to approving a bill to allow gambling online in virtual Atlantic City casinos. Delaware, Nevada, California and Florida are considering similar bills. Within the year, high-stakes poker will be available on every work desk and mobile phone in the nation.

Meanwhile, states are increasingly dependent on revenues from casinos, lotteries and the "Mega Millions" game (in which 42 states pool their grand prize) to partly refill state coffers.

Given who plays, this is one of the most regressive taxes in the nation. In the most recent Mega Millions game -- whose winning tickets were drawn two weeks ago and whose jackpot rose to $640 million -- lottery ticket buyers shelled out some $1.5 billion, most of which went to state governments.

Why should governments use taxpayer dollars to actively market games to Americans -- many of them low-income and vulnerable to get-rich-quick pitches, who don't know the odds are stacked against them and in favor of the government?

As if all this weren't enough, we now have the "Jumpstart Our Business Startups" or misleadingly named "JOBS" Act, which President Obama signed into law last Thursday. It's almost designed for con artists.

It allows so-called "crowdfunding" by which people whose net worth is less than $100,000 can gamble away (that is, invest) up to 5 percent of their annual incomes in any get-rich-quick scam (start-up) that any huckster (entrepreneur) may sell them.

Forget the usual investor disclosures or other protections. In the interest of "streamlining" investment in small companies, Congress has streamlined the way to fraud.

Although start-ups under the JOBS Act will have to market themselves through third-party portals approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, this is like limiting Bernie Madoff to making pitches over the radio.

As it is, the SEC can barely keep track of Wall Street let alone thousands of Internet portals. Small wonder SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro had been one of most outspoken critics of the bill.

The JOBS Act was sold to Congress as a way to promote jobs (note the acronym) on the supposition that small start-ups create huge numbers of them. That itself was a con.

Start-ups don't create lots of jobs. The assertion they do comes from research by the Kauffman Foundation, which counted as a "start-up job" every laid-off worker who has morphed into an independent contractor.

Over the last four years, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs have involuntarily made themselves available for contract work, with none of the security or benefits of a full-time salaried employee. To assume they're all start-up businesses, and conclude from this that start-ups are generating millions of jobs, is a wild stretch.

I'm all in favor of more entrepreneurship, and it's good to give investors another way to participate in emerging companies. But the so-called JOBS Act doesn't do nearly enough to protect the vulnerable.

America's capital market is already a casino. Millions of Americans lost their shirts in the wake of the crash of 2008, after having gotten mortgages from fast-talking bank lenders who assured them home prices would continue to rise and who didn't disclose the fine print. They were conned.

Haven't we learned a lesson? In whatever form it comes, gambling is a scam. Regardless of whether it's peddled as a sure-thing investment opportunity, a state lottery, a virtual online gambling casino or the real thing, the house always wins.

Organized gambling is OK if you know what you're doing. Some people like the thrill, even when they know the odds are stacked against them.

But get-rich-quick schemes prey upon people who are particularly vulnerable -- who assume they can't make it big any other way, who often find it hardest to assess the odds, and whose families can least afford to lose the money.

Yet step by step we're turning America into a giant casino.

(Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is now Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. Reich has written 13 books, including the recent national best-seller, "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future," and his new e-book, "Beyond Outrage.")

From the Chicago Tribune

Robert Reich: ‘Turning America Into a Giant Casino’

Source:Baltimore Sun- with a look at a Maryland casino.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Anyone who says you can get rich through gambling is a fool or a knave. Multiply the size of the prize by your chance of winning it and you’ll always get a number far lower than what you put into the pot. The only sure winners are the organizers – casino owners, state lotteries, and con artists of all kinds.

Organized gambling is a scam. And it particularly preys upon people with lower incomes – who assume they can’t make it big any other way, who often find it hardest to assess the odds, and whose families can least afford to lose the money.

Yet America is now opening the floodgates.

In December, the Department of Justice announced it was reversing its position that all Internet gambling was illegal. That decision is about to create a boom in online gambling. Expect high-stakes poker to be available on every work desk and mobile phone.

Meanwhile, states are increasingly dependent on revenues from casinos, lotteries, and the “Mega Millions” game (in which 42 states pool their grand prize) to partly refill state coffers.

Given who plays, this is one of the most regressive taxes in the nation. In the most recent Mega Millions game – whose winning tickets were drawn last week and whose jackpot rose to $640 million – lottery ticket buyers shelled out some $1.5 billion, most of which went to state governments.

And then there’s the “Jumpstart Our Business Startups” or “JOBS” Act, which President Obama is expected to sign into law Thursday. It allows so-called “crowd funding” by which people whose net worth is less than $100,000 can gamble away (invest) up to 5 percent of their annual incomes in any get-rich-quick scam (start-up) that any huckster (entrepreneur) may sell them.”

From Robert Reich 

To respond to Robert Reich, I’m going to give you both a practical response for why we have legal organized gambling in America, as well as a philosophical one.

States (whether they’re run by Democrats or Republicans) can only tax so much. There are only so many people that can afford pay high taxes in each state. Which is one of the main facts that Socialists will probably never understand about American economics. Which means to have the high quality schools, roads, bridges, law enforcement, tourist attractions to each state, they have to have the revenue to pay for those things. Without business, workers, and money in the economy and not in the government’s, government would never have the revenue to pay for the services that every developed economy has.

My philosophical argument for organized gambling in America: there has yet to be a government anywhere in the world that is more qualified to make the personal and economic decisions for the individuals, than the individuals themselves. With any life comes at least a certain amount of risk (at least in a free society) otherwise life wouldn’t be worth living for most of us. The way to reduce risk in a free society is through regulation and taxation, not prohibition, which doesn’t work. Just look at the War On Drugs or prostitution.