Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, August 31, 2012

Rt America The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann: "The Republican Plan to Put 98% of Their Agenda Through The Next Congress": Not Going to Happen

I've heard some crazy theories before but this is the pipe dream that may even get me to rethink my Marijuana Legalization position. Currently I support Legalizing Marijuana but this so called plan that Anti Tax Crusader Grover Norquist has apparently released to the Financial Times. Where assuming Mitt Romney wins the Presidential Election, where only one major National Poll has him with a lead right now. And where if the Presidential Election were held tomorrow, the President would win more Electoral Votes but still not enough to get to 271 but the point is he would still have more then Mitt. And then the undecided States would decide the Electoral College and that Republicans hold the House but they probably lose 10-15 seats maybe twenty. And that Senate Republicans pick up 3-4 seats in the Senate, even despite all of their self inflicted wounds. And the fact that some Republican seats that were off the table back in May, are now on the table thanks to the Tea Party. Indiana, Maine, perhaps Arizona, Massachusetts as well was always there, this is assuming a lot, everything would have to fall perfectly into Republicans hands.

Remember the old joke, why shouldn't you assume, because it makes an ass out of you and me. That describes this Republican plan perfectly but just for the Hell of it, lets say everything falls into place. Lets say its 50-50 Republican next year in the Senate with a President Romney, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner with a much smaller majority then he has now. If you are the Senate Democratic Leadership whether Harry Reid becomes the new Minority Leader or someone else gets the job, what incentive do you have to work with. Mitch McConnell on anything, especially with how the Republican Minority has been so obstructive to the Senate Majority on everything the last six years. It will still take Unanimous Consent to move any legislation in the Senate in the next Congress. Meaning the Minority Leader will be able to block anything by objecting to it on the floor. And the Leader would need sixty votes to overturn the objection.

Forget about the Senate Cloture Rule for a minute which shouldn't be hard for anyone to do. A lot of the legislation that the Republican Minority has blocked in the Senate the last six years. Has been done through objecting to it, the Leader calls a bill up, McConnell or one his deputies objects to it, Leader Reid doesn't have sixty votes to overturn the objection. He voices his frustration and they move on and of course it will still take sixty votes just move to Final Passage. Basically you need sixty votes to vote on Final Passage in the Senate, so even with Budget Reconciliation, meaning only fifty one votes needed to pass legislation . Thats part of a budget plan, Senate Republicans would still have some major hurdles to overcome. Another words this plan aint happening in the next Congress but nice try guys keep playing.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

The Daily Beast: Jeb Bush at the RNC Convention: How The GOP Has Moved Past Reagan/Bush Conservatism

I'm not a fan of former President George W. Bush and of course I'm not the only Democrat who believes that. Even though I treat him the respect that any Ex President who took at least four years out of their lives to lead this great country. And I don't see President W Bush as some evil moron that a lot of people on the left, especially far left see him as. I see him as basically a good decent guy who should've stayed in Texas for at least one more term and perhaps should've served in Congress for a few terms or in the cabinet. Before ever even of considered running for President of the United States, who was over his head as President. And having to make a lot of decisions as President that he was unqualified to make. But the people who have come after President Bush and I someone who managed to survive the eight years of the Bush Presidency, without leaving the country. But the Republicans who've replaced George W. Bush in leading the GOP, make Bush look like a Saint and a man of brilliance who can solve any issue that he faces. This is going to sound strange but today's GOP has moved to the right of George W. Bush and this is the guy. Who brought us Borrow and Spend Economics, Preemptive War, the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention.

Jeb Bush gave a good speech tonight but he was speaking to a GOP audience thats in the minority in this party. A message of tolerance, inclusion, Public Education but Public Education thats held accountable and thats not where the GOP is today, except for maybe on education. If you look at their platform, its a platform thats designed to win in Dixie and in the rest of the Bible Belt. That believes America has too much freedom which is hurting our morality as a country, not a platform thats designed to reach out and bring in new voters to the party. Especially young people, Latinos and Asians, people that the GOP badly needs if they are to remain a major party in American Politics in the next years. There are a couple of reasons of why I believe Jeb Bush is not running for President, the obvious one is because of the unpopularity of his brother. But the other has to do with the fact that he would be considered a Liberal in today's GOP.

Jeb Bush tonight was speaking tonight to an audience of Independent Voters, that perhaps he's trying to bring into the GOP. Rather then speaking to today's GOP thats run by Religious and Neoconservatives, that don't believe in a big America but limiting America and what it means to be an American. To people who think and live their lives the way they do, which is a shame for the GOP, because Jeb Bush could beat the Democrats.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

RT Ameirca: Adriana Usero- GOP: Grand and Really Old Party?

Source: RT America-
Source: RT America: Adriana Usero- GOP: Grand and Really Old Party?

Today's GOP thats based in the South and the rural South, with Democrats still competing in big Southern cities and still hold governorships in big Southern states like North Carolina, but today's GOP is based for the most part in the rural South and the rest of rural America, thats not where most of the country lives. This shouldn't be a newsflash to anyone, even for people who are currently taking Politics 101 and failing it, but to win elections in America, you have to win in areas that are populated and have major populations.

This is just example of why today's GOP is dying off, because they live where most of the country doesn't and as we are getting younger and becoming more racially and ethnically diverse as a country. The GOP is becoming more Caucasian, more male and older as a party and they live where the most of the rest of the country doesn't. They've almost become a religious political cult and moved to the hills where Modern America can't bother or make fun of them.

Today's so-called Voter ID laws or as I call them Democratic Voter Prevention laws and why do I say that because they are targeted at minorities, big city seniors and young voters. All people who tend to vote Democratic. People who also don't tend to walk around with a lot of ID on them. We're not talking about military and law enforcement personal here, at least generally. People are always on the go, perhaps do not drive, don't have landline phones, only use their cell phones, people who are important and have lives, who tend not to vote Republican.

The Republican Party understands the new lifestyles of young adult Americans and are already prepared for it and they also understand that as the country has moved left on social issues, the GOP has moved into a time machine and moved back to the 1950s culturally and politically, across the board. They have moved away from Goldwater/Reagan conservatism on social issues and foreign policy and have adopted religious theocratic  authoritarian social policies. Including these bogus (to be overwhelmingly generous) Voter ID laws. And have decided that they can't win with the voters who don't tend to vote Republican so they have to block them in order to win.

Going forward the Republican Party has a choice in where they can go in order to remain a major party in American politics. Moderate on social issues, which means take a trip to the 21st Century and see how Modern America lives and what it looks like. Meaning going back to being that conservative-libertarian Goldwater/Reagan party on social issues and bring in the Ron Paul supporters.

Or they can keep doing what they are doing, kissing off everyone thats not a Republican today and telling them they aren't welcome. And hope they can deny enough people from voting in order to win and prey those laws don't get thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But today's GOP is only going to get smaller. Or perhaps move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, if they want to know what a religious theocratic stuck in the 1800s country looks like. 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

WEWS-TV News: Dr. Martin Luther King in Cleveland, Ohio in 1967: The Poor People's Campaign

Equal Rights Leader-
I wanted to write a blog about Dr. Martin Luther King’s Poor People’s Campaign that he launched in 1967-68. A few years after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 65 respectfully were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. But I couldn’t find footage of that campaign that was more than a couple of minutes long. But the video I did find is still pretty good. Dr. King, understood as a freedom fighter, that he was someone who fights for freedom, not the other way around.

That of course it was important that all Americans be treated equally under law for all of us to live in freedom. But for America to be a real liberal democracy, we had to do something about poverty in America. That at the time of the late 1960s, was around 25%, perhaps twice that much for African-Americans. And that these people no matter their race to truly to live in freedom, they had to have economic freedom as well. The ability to support themselves. And not forced to live off of public assistance and be forced to live in rundown ghettos, or be forced to live in rundown shacks in rural America. But be able to have a quality of life-like the rest of the country and be able to live in security.

The Poor People’s Campaign, or as I would call it the Campaign Against Poverty, was the next phase of the civil rights movement. They already established the Civil Rights Act, that no American would be allowed to be discriminated against based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. The Voting Rights Act, establishing that no American would be allowed to be denied the right to vote based on race, ethnicity, or gender. But after that was a movement to fight poverty in America. To first bring awareness to the problem, “this what we face as a country” and then hopefully come up with steps to address the issues of poverty.

They didn’t get to this part, MLK died in April, 1968. But this would’ve been the next phase of the civil rights movement. To go along with furthering non-violence, taking on the Vietnam War and perhaps fighting for human rights worldwide. This is just one example of why the assassination of Martin King was so tragic, especially at the age of 39. An early middle-age man if that. Because there was so much left for him to accomplish and work on and he simply just ran out of time because of an ignorant escaped prison inmate, who should’ve been rotting in a Missouri prison instead.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Michael Grunwald: The New New Deal: The Story of The American Recovery Act

The 2009 American Recovery Act actually had a lot of positive features in it and what it accomplished. Was establishing a floor as far as how far the economy could collapse, buying America time so that it could start recovering from the "Great Recession", which is what we've been trying. To do ever since the summer of 2009 but of course that wasn't the story of that summer, the story of that summer was the "Death Panels" and the Tea Party. Not the fact that the "Great Recession" was actually one of the shortest recessions we've ever had, lasting about nine months. But the Recovery Act was also a golden missed opportunity, here we have a new President taking over in a time where we had just lost around 2M jobs the previous two months. With his party having large majorities in both chambers of Congress but where interest rates were very low. Despite 11T$ National Debt and a 1T$ Federal Deficit, so they could've afforded to borrow 1-2T$ to finance a real Economic Recovery Act. That not only ends the "Great Recession" but moves the economy forward, starts creating jobs and preventing future layoffs.

The days of the Franklin Rosevelt and the New Deal are over, America is not politically at a point. Where we want to see a President try to double the size of the Federal Government, especially as it relates to Social Insurance. That type of Big Government Progressive can barely get elected Statewide, let alone nationally, the Dennis Kucinich's of the World don't get taken. Seriously as Presidential Candidates, let alone these Progressive Third Parties but America was in position back in 2009 with the collapsing economy and perhaps in the next Congres. To literally rebuild the country put at least a down payment on the 1T$ in Infrastructure Investment that this country needs according to the Core of Engineers. Have some much needed Tax Relief for all of those business's and banks that went under as a result of the "Great Recession". And prevent future layoffs in the Public Sector with State Aid.

What the 2009 Recovery Act was, was basically a down payment on what we should've done instead. And the Obama Administration did was make a political calculation, that they needed to pass something fast, instead of spending the time to figure out what exactly. We should do as a country and they've been paying a price for it ever since and so has the economy.

ABC News: ABC Evening News 1972 VP Drama- The George McGovern Convention

Howard K. Smith-
This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

George McGovern did a lot to bring in new voters to the Democratic Party. Reaching to African, Latin, Asian and Jewish Americans. As well as women and suburban voters, after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. With a large number of Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans heading to the GOP because of civil rights. And you could credit Senator McGovern with even saving the Democratic Party. Because without these new voters, all of these new people would’ve ended up Republicans, or not voting at all.

And we would’ve seen Republican Congress’s, not just a Republican Senate, but the GOP would’ve won back the House and Senate well before 1994. Perhaps even by 1980 with the Reagan Revolution, because the Democratic Party would’ve been left with a large hole to fill. With all of those Southern voters heading to the GOP, without other voters heading to the Democratic Party. So by bringing in all of these new voters to the Democratic Party, Senator McGovern deserves credit for saving the Democratic Party. From future losses in Congress and the White House after 1972.

Democrats added to their majorities in Congress in 1974. And they won back the White House while holding both the House and Senate in 1976. But the Democratic Party paid such a heavy price for it in 1972, yes President Nixon was pretty popular. But they were a very divided party between establishment Liberals who wanted a united party to face the Republicans in the fall and the anti-war New-Left Social Democrats. That wanted to take over the party and return it to where it was in the 1960s and build on the New Deal and Great Society. And George McGovern also deserves credit for running the most disorganize convention in the TV era.

Salon: Willa Paskin Interviewing Anna Gunn- Skyler Might Kill Walt

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: Salon: Willa Paskin Interviewing Anna Gunn- Skyler Might Kill Walt

One of the cutest mommies you'll ever see. Skyler White (played by the beautiful adorable Anna Gunn) comes off at least what I believe as a 'babe in the woods' (great Goodfellas line) in Breaking Bad. At least in the first season. I didn't become a regular viewer of this show until the third or fourth season. And Walter White (played by Bryan Cranston) doesn't start off as a criminal. He's someone who get into the meth business to save his life and get the treatment that he needs for his cancer, as well as to support his family. He's a woefully underpaid middle-age science teacher in New Mexico. And goes into the meth business to again save his life and support his family. Skyler, his wife starts off this series as a homemaker. Who other than her husband's cancer believes he's a good honest man. Living a normal life.

As the first season moves along the White Family, Walter, Skyler and their son, is essentially broke. Walt, is bringing in the only income to the family. Forty-thousand-dollars a year as a high school science teacher. 2008-09, the start of the Great Recession and when it was at its worst. No economic or job growth. Even with Baby Boomers retiring, so Skyler goes back to work as an accountant. She's an accountant, not some former stripper bimbo married to one her former clients that she fell in love with. She's an educated an intelligent person and knows her family is going to need money and a lot of it. Especially with her husband in the hospital on a regular basis getting treatment. The accountant part is key here, because she figures out her husband has extra money here. Which is where this series gets very interesting.

This is when Walt is getting is meth business going and becoming successful with his high school dropout partner. She figures out that he's in the drug business, but doesn't turn him in. Maybe she's worried about what will happen to her if she does that. Maybe she's worried about what will happen to the father of her son who has cancer. Maybe she doesn't want to lose his income from his business, because again they need the money. But their family which was pretty normal pre-cancer, now becomes very stressful and Skyler and Walt, now are arguing on a regular basis and even separate, but never actually divorce. This is really a great and funny crime drama with all sorts of great characters. And Skyler White played by Anna Gunn, is a huge part of that.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

AlterNet: Lauren Kelly: Bill Maher- The Only Thing You Need to Know About Rep. Todd Akin & Anatomy is That He's an Asshole

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: AlterNet: Lauren Kelly: Bill Maher- The Only Thing You Need to Know About Rep. Todd Akin & Anatomy is That He's an Asshole

I think to understand Todd Akin you have to understand the Missouri U.S. Senate race between Senator Claire McCaskill and Representative Todd Akin. Representative Akin, probably represents a very rural, redneck even heavily Protestant district, where his positions on rape and abortion are not just mainstream, but perhaps considered expected. The problem that Representative Akin is that even if part of Missouri looks like South Carolina and the capital of the Bible Belt, Missouri is essentially a swing state. Where you can’t be very far-right and can’t be far-left at all and expect to win statewide there. Representative Akin, might be able to get away with saying that women shouldn’t be allowed by law to wear tight outfits in public and work out of the home. In his district, but not statewide.

The problems that radicals whether they’re on the Right, or on the Left, who serve in the House and perhaps are only there because they have gerrymandered districts that represents their own views, is that when they move out of their comfort zone which might just be next door, is they’re no longer home. They are now in world where people don’t want big government in people’s personal lives. Where there’s no such thing as a legitimate rape. You can’t run a statewide political campaign in a swing state by tailoring your message to your own overly partisan gerrymandered House district. To win statewide in a state like Missouri it helps not to be very radical at all in one direction, or the other. But if you are, then you need to moderate as you try to represent the whole state.

The Todd Akin’s of the Republican Party represent not just the Bible Belt in Congress and in America, but the Saudi wing of Congress and America as well. A population of the country that might like bashing Islāmic terrorism and claim to be against it. But endorse a country like Saudi Arabia’s policies when it comes to social policy and women’s issues. Where women on a good day might be second-class citizens in their own country, but generally are treated as property of their men. They can’t even decide how to dress themselves in public. Can’t drive a car, risk getting the death penalty if they cheat on their spouses, or boyfriends and I could go on. But I don’t want to be accused of sending anyone into a depression. That is the lifestyle and how the Christian-Right wants to see for American women in the land of the free. And that is where Todd Akin comes from.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Rumor in Town: Video: MLB 1939-World Series-Cincinnati Reds @ New York Yankees: A Look at Yankee Stadium

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger

I think Yankee Stadium was a great place for baseball, but I’m not sure it was a great ballpark. And what do I mean by that? That when I think of ballparks I think of places that primarily for baseball and were designed primarily for baseball. To the point that if you tried to play another sport there the park would look funny because of how the seats would have to be rearranged for football are soccer to be played there. And that sight lines would look funny as well. I think of Fenway Park as the example of a great ballpark. Wrigley Field would be another one and modern ballparks like Oriole Park Jacobs Field would great modern ballparks.

Yankee Stadium was a great place for baseball, but it was a stadium a very big one at that. At one point it seated something like seventy-thousand for baseball and like eighty-thousand for football. Yankee Stadium was a multi-purpose stadium and one of the few good if not great multipurpose stadiums that were ever built. Baltimore Memorial Stadium would be another one and Tiger Stadium in Detroit would be another one as well. And Yankee Stadium the old one at least was certainly a great baseball castle, but I wouldn’t put it down as a great ballpark, because it was a multipurpose stadium instead.

RFK Vs. LBJ: An Administration of Rivals

Looking back on it now it might of been a mistake for Lyndon Johnson who at the time in 1960, was the Leader of the Senate. Probably the most powerful person in Congress, to take the Vice Presidential Nomination from then Senator Jack Kennedy or have taken it under the conditions that he did. President Kennedy completely undervalued Vice President Johnson and pretty much treated him as nothing more them an emergency QB, someone who fills in when the President is unable to. And essentially gave the powers and responsibilities of today's Vice Presidents, to his brother the Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. Who was the 2nd most powerful member on the Kennedy Administration, even though his official power was much lower then that as Attorney General. What LBJ should've done is that I'll be your Vice President but under certain conditions. That it will be a real job, with real responsibility and authority, with my own offices and staff, that they work in coordination with yours. That I'm in on every Executive Meeting and have access to all the relevant information that you have. Which is similar to what Vice President Richard Nixon had under President Eisenhower and what every Vice President since Walter Mondale has had since.

I basically put more of the blame of the LBJ-RFK Rivalry on Bobby Kennedy, because of how he treated LBJ, when LBJ was Vice President. Treating him like an animal, a threat that LBJ is not really one of us and that he speaks for himself and not the Kennedy Administration. And a lot of what LBJ did to and said about RFK, was out of anger and the disrespect that RFK gave LBJ but neither man was innocent in this. They both had wrong impressions of each other and treated each other based on that.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Midweek Politics: Texas Judge Predicts Civil War if President Obama Re-Elected: Mental Patients On The Loose

Back when Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 and then of course won the Democratic Nomination. There was a Birther Movement created to examine the Birth Certificate of then Senator Obama, a well as his American Citizenship of a Presidential Nominee in the United States. Apparently unaware that you actually have to be an American Citizen to serve in Congress, House or Senate. They were also examining the Birth Certificate of the Democratic Presidential Nominee, these Birthers are apparently unaware that you have to of been born in the United States. Or one of your biological parents had to of been born in the United States to be eligible to run for the United States as well. I mention these things for a couple of reasons, one had there of been any problems with Barack Obama's Birth Certificate or Citizenship, they would've come out back in 2003-04 when he was running for the US Senate in Illinois. But forget that for moment, the fact that Barack's mother was born in the United States, even though his father was born in Kenya. Is all the evidence that you need to know that Barack Obama is an American Citizen, as well as eligible to run and be President of the United States. And then there's of course Barack's Hawaii Birth Certificate as well, case close for any sane intelligent person.

Then in early 2009 shortly after Barack Obama became President, Governor Rick Perry of "don't mess with Texas". Announced that Texas should consider succeeding from the Union because we had a Socialist as President, as it turns out Governor Perry was already considering running for President for 2012. But he knows his State pretty well or he should by now after being Governor of it by that point for eight years. And he knows what plays well politically there in that State and how unpopular President Obama is there, meaning he was never serious about it. Early this year after Ted Nugent had just escaped from his latest stay in a Mental Institution. He announced that if President Obama was reelected, he would be shot while in office. This is the level of intelligence and sanity thats in the GOP right now or better yet lack of it. That people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann would be taken seriously as Presidential Candidates.

The latest escape Mental Patient on the lose, is down once again in Texas, a County Judge of all people. I hope they don't let him preside over cases from the Institution, announced that if the President is reelected, he will put together an army to physically remove the President from the White House. My question along with David Pakman is, where is the US Secret Service on this, this person at the very least should be brought in for questioning.

FRSFreeStateNow: Liberty Pen: Open End with Ron Suskind: "Property Rights Up In Smoke": Regulation vs Prohibition

FRSFreeStateNow: Liberty Pen: Open End with Ron Suskind: "Property Rights Up In Smoke": Regulation vs Prohibition

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Current: The War Room With Jennifer Granholm: "We have to fight': Teamsters President James Hoffa JR says Mitt Romney Wants Eliminate Organize Labor"

To understand the Workers Rights debate and thats exactly what is, the right of Workers who tend to be Middle Class in America. People who apparently Mitt Romney believes are under taxed, because he has a Middle Class Tax Hike in his economic plan. You have to know that its about Economic Freedom for people in the Middle Class, that if you believe in Economic Freedom, you believe in it for everyone, not just for executives and stockholders. But for the workers who make executives and the wealthy, well wealthy with their productivity, one of the reasons why American Workers are so well paid compared with a lot of other countries. Is because of their productivity, so they are simply worth a lot more economically then people in lets say Mexico and even in Japan. And based on their productivity, they are probably even underpaid and anyone who knows that if America really had a Free Market economy. American Workers would probably be making a hell of a lot more money then they do today and another reason why American Workers do so well compared with a lot of the rest of the World, has to do with Organize Labor. The ability for American Workers to collectively bargain, which is something that Tea Party Republicans are trying to eliminate.

To understand this debate you also have to understand what Right to Work is, which is a bogus term. Right to Work suggests that Americans have a Right to Work, that we are entitled to a job in the United States based on our Citizenship. Which is simply not true, no American is automatically entitled to a job, based on the Constitution or Statue, jobs are something we have to earn in this country. Thats not what these Right to Work Laws are, what they really are giving employers the Right of Absolute Power, meaning they wouldn't have Organize Labor to hold them accountable. Right to Work means that Organize Labor would essentially be outlawed, which is something that Democrats shouldn't tolerate and any real Conservative Republican shouldn't tolerate either. Republicans who actually believe in Individual Freedom and don't just talk about it.

I'm a Liberal Democrat and I'm not anti Capitalist, anti Corporate or anti business, I'm pro all of those things but I'm also pro Worker as well, the people who. Make these companies successful and I don't believe most corporations or executives are evil like a lot of Progressives. I believe by in large they perform a good function for the country, I just don't believe they deserve Absolute Power. Like a lot of Republicans who apparently do.

FRSFreeStateNow: Reason TV: Cato's David Lampo: "Why the GOP Should Embrace Gay Rights": Why The GOP Should Embrace Individual Freedom

FRSFreeStateNow: Reason TV: Cato's David Lampo: "Why the GOP Should Embrace Gay Rights": Why The GOP Should Embrace Individual Freedom

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: "The Real Story Behind the Soviet Empire's Shocking Collapse": A System That was Designed To Fail

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: "The Real Story Behind the Soviet Empire's Shocking Collapse": A System That was Designed To Fail

Emmanuel Goldstein: Video: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner: Dr. Martin Luther King

Equal Rights Leader
Emmanuel Goldstein: Video: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner: Dr. Martin Luther King

Liberal democracy, worked pretty well in America except for African-Americans and perhaps other racial minorities. Which is why the civil rights movement was so important and Reverend Martin L. King comes along in the 1950s part of the civil rights generation that he in large part created. And concluded that for America to be a true liberal democracy, that all Americans should have their liberty and not just a special few. That liberal democracy had to work for all of us, not some of us, or we weren’t a real liberal democracy.

As President Kennedy said, we would be a country that’s half free and half slave. With some Americans with the liberty to live up to their full-potential in life and get out of life what they put into it, with everyone else being dependent on what the special few gave us. And that forced segregation and racism was wrong and unacceptable and that this can’t be tolerated in a liberal democracy. And knew how to fight back against this and mobilized people who felt the same way. Dr. King’s political skills were also very good, he understood that not all Caucasian-Americans were racists and believed in forced segregation. He also knew that not all Southern Caucasians were racists either and reached out to those people a well.

Another thing that Dr. King understood that when of this interview in 1957, that African- Americans made up roughly 10% of the American population. And for his movement to ever get off the ground, let alone succeed, he was going to need the help of other Americans. Similar to the gay rights movement today. Which is why he reached out to Caucasians, Jews, Latinos and others, especially in the media, to get the message out. And did a lot of interviews in print and broadcast. To spread the movement of non-violence, peace and equal rights for all Americans and again not just for the special few.

Thats a big part along with their keen intelligence that made Dr. King and Malcolm X so special. They both really knew how to work the media to get their message out. This is also what made people like Richard Hefner so special like this, who understood the greatness of people before they were famous. Dr. King, understood the power of the media, especially the electronic media before a lot of other people did. Similar to Jack Kennedy and knew how to use it to get their message out and spread the word of what they were trying to say and be able to communicate. Not only to their followers, but also to bring in a lot of other new followers. And had a great message to get out and communicate to America.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Daily Beast: Michelle Goldberg: "Rep. Todd Akin's Views on Abortion are bad; the GOP Platform is Worse": The Un Conservative GOP

I'm always amused by a party thats viewed Big Government as the problem for the last forty years or so. Every time that they are in power or are competing for the opportunity to get into power, like at a National Convention. Goes out of their way to promote Big Government and make Americans less freer, a you can see with who are their major Presidential Candidates, the fact that Rick Santorum who finished. 2nd in the GOP Presidential Nomination battle is all the evidence you need to know about that but the fact that Michelle Bachmann who said that pornography and Same Sex Marriage are threats to National Security. Or that so many Republicans wanted Sarah Palin one of the Generals in the Culture War for the right, to run for President in 2012. The fact that someone like Ron Paul who actually believes in what Republicans claim to stand for, Limited Government, Individual Freedom and Responsibility but can't go anywhere in the polls. Or even win a Republican Primary, because he actually believes in those things and doesn't support things like Constitutional Amendments to ban pornography or Same Sex Marriage, that he actually believes in Federalism and doesn't just say he does.

The Republican Party has now become the party of Limited Government and Individual Freedom and Responsibility. Just not for the people, for everyone else we have to live our lives the way Neoconservatives want us to, which means 80-85% of the country that actually believes in Individual Freedom. Has to live our lives like the other 15-20%, the ultimate minority ruling over the majority. The fact that the GOP is nominating Mitt Romney for President, doesn't tell me they believe in whatever Mitt believes him, because they don't know what Mitt believes in. Mitt might not even know what he believes in, the fact that they are nominating him, doesn't tell me that they want to go back to being a real Conservative Party. Thats even more Libertarian then anything else but that the GOP Establishment wants to win and they believe that Mitt. Has the best opportunity to do that out of a very weak field to choose from.

And all you have to do to know this is to look at all the new restrictions on our current freedoms. That the GOP wants to put on Americans in the next Congress, from abortion to homosexuality to pornography to voting to immigration, doesn't mean that Mitt Romney agrees with all of it. But that the party that he's going to have to try to lead in the late summer and fall. A party that more to the right then Mitt couldn't ever dream of flip flopping on enough positions to be that far right in the future.

Election Wall: ABC Evening News: George McGovern and Ed Muskie 1972 Presidential Election

Election Wall: ABC Evening News: George McGovern and Ed Muskie 1972 Presidential Election

The Democrats didn't have anyone who could beat Richard Nixon in 1972. They also didn't have a united party that could do that as well. One of the reasons why Senator George McGovern as leader of the party for that fall campaign reformed the rules for how delegates were assigned at conventions was to bring in more Americans to the party. The party was transitioning from a Southern based party with Northeastern ties to a party that by the 1980s was heavily dependent on the Northeast and West Coast to win. As well as big cities in the Midwest. Because Senator McGovern brought in African-Americans, Latinos, Jews and Asians to the party from these big cities in the country.

George McGovern whatever you think of his politics was a very bright man. And served South Dakota very well in Congress both in the House and later in the Senate. And I'm sure at the very least knew that even if he did win the Democratic nomination for president he had not an uphill  battle against President Nixon in the fall. But more like a swimmer trying to swim upstream with one arm, one leg and one eye. But what he did in 1972 as far as changing the voting rules in the party paid off really well for Democrats in 1976 with Jimmy Carter. And perhaps helped Democrats hold onto the House of Representatives for another 22 years after 72 with all of the new voters that came to the party. But 1972 was not a year that Democrats were prepared to win back the presidency. They were in transition and way too divided.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Midweek Politics: "Pregnant Girl Dies After Abortion Ban Prevents Chemotherapy": Is Pro Life Anti Healthcare?

I'm going to start off this post by asking a question, can you be Pro Life but Anti Healthcare, that might sound like a dumb question. But think about it, if you are Pro Life you support the protecting the lives of others, that all lives are special and deserved to be saved. This is one thing I respect about Dr. James Dobson, even though we disagree on both abortion and the Death Penalty. Dr. Dobson believes that even if you murdered someone, that the State doesn't have the right to take your life from you, he's also Pro Life on abortion. And think about what is healthcare for, for all you knuckleheads out there, that the answer is not obvious enough for. To protect our health, to save our lives and so fourth to help us be as healthy as we can be. So we can live as long as a healthy life as we can, we of course have some Individual Responsibility here and have to play our roles. But healthcare is there to help us with that, so naturally if you are Pro Life as a lot of Americans have claimed to be, you would be in favor of healthcare procedures that can save innocent Americans. Even in the case of abortion to save an innocent life instead of losing that life and the fetus.

But this unfortunately is not always the case, there are people who are so Anti Abortion, people who call people like myself "Pro Abortion". That they don't even believe Abortion should be legal, even to save the life and health of the mother. I guess they would prefer to see the mother die and then keep the baby alive for the father to raise by himself or whatever. I understand people who are Pro Life because they see abortion as the taking of an innocent life. And based on how they were raised and their real not made up Religious Beliefs, that killing innocent people is murder. And therefor is wrong, I get that but people who believe this. Tend to believe that there should be an exception for Abortion, to save the life of the mother. And in come cases, life and health and in other case, life, health and in the cases of rape and incest. These people aren't crazy and have a legitimate viewpoint, I just disagree with it.

But to be Pro Life and believe women shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion, just because they changed their mind or something. Or some other decision like that, is different from being Anti Healthcare, where you are so Anti Abortion that you've now become Anti Healthcare. That you wouldn't even allow Abortions to save the lives and health of the mother, is simply crazy and perhaps even cruel.

FRSFreeStateNow: Reason TV: A Conversation with Cato's David Boaz at Freedom Fest 2012: Libertarians in America

FRSFreeStateNow: Reason TV: A Conversation with Cato's David Boaz at Freedom Fest 2012: Libertarians in America

ABC News: ABC Evening News: A Few Days Before The 1972 Democratic Convention

ABC News: ABC Evening News: A Few Days Before The 1972 Democratic Convention

Here's a reason to watch ABC Now if you are a political junky. There was simply no way that the Democratic Party was going to win the 1972 presidential election. Even if you could get past the facts that President Richard Nixon was ending the Vietnam War, that his policies to talk to and work with Russia and China were paying off and that the American economy was still relatively healthy. But the state of the Democratic Party was the main issues for Democrats in 72. The emerging that I at least would call socialist New-Left that backed Senator George McGovern for president who went out his way to have this fringe political faction behind him. Combined with what was left of the Southern right-wing base in the party that backed Governor George Wallace. And the traditional New Deal/Great Society progressive coalition that was behind Senator Hubert Humphrey.

Democrats and Senator George McGovern were so desperate to get attention and support behind their campaign that they tried to make Watergate an issue in the summer and fall of 72. Even though most of the country hadn't even heard of the Watergate Hotel yet, let alone the burglary there. Landslides tend to happen at least at the presidential level when you have a fairly popular president which is what Richard Nixon was for most of 1972, with a large percentage of the country believing things are going well. Facing a divided opposition party like the Democratic Party in 72. That couldn't decide who their presidential nominee was going to be and which faction of the party would get it until they got to the convention itself. Opposition parties need to be united behind a leader in order to defeat the President of the United States. Which is not what the Democrats were in 72.

Salon: Erik Nelson- Breaking Bad: Mike Blows it

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: Salon: Erik Nelson- Breaking Bad: Mike Blows it

Thats one thing that’s great about Breaking Bad, is you never know where its going. This is a show that I at least perfectly believes represents the time that it was part of perhaps as well if not better than any other show ever created. Comes on the air in 2008 at the start of the Great Recession. Bryan Cranston, plays Walter White, a middle-age high school science teacher in New Mexico. Who has just been diagnosed with cancer and will need hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment in order to survive it and beat it. The problem he has is that he’s a forty-thousand-dollar a year high school teacher. Who has health insurance from his school, but that is only going to go so far. 2008-09, pre-Affordable Care Act. You could only use so much health insurance in dollars at that point before you got cut off. His wife at the time is a homemaker and they have a teenage son.

This is where I believe this show gets real, so to speak. How many other Americans are going through similar circumstances, at least at this point. Come down with an illness that they simply can’t afford to take care of. Even though they have a middle class job that comes with real benefits. What Walter White (played by Bryan Cranston) has going for him is that he’s a science teacher. And is in touch with one of his former students who is now a small time drug dealer and criminal. And they decide to go into the illegal narcotics business by making meth. So Walter can survive financially, as well as physically. And they end up becoming pretty successful in New Mexico as meth dealers even though they have to deal with so many risks, dangers and stress of this business.

Breaking Bad is about as dramatic and real as a show gets, but its like watching a comedy every week. Or at least a dramatic comedy with very funny people and not just Bryan Cranston, but Dean Norris who plays Walter’s brother in-law and Skyler’s brother. As well as Bob Odenkirk and many others. And this show gives you a very entertaining and humorous look at the New Mexico meth business. And what people might do if they’re absolutely desperate and believe they have no way out. And have to take huge risks like being caught and being sent away to prison for decades. Or being killed by sellers and dealers who want to screw you, or see you as some threat. Where there’s no one you can trust, perhaps especially your family. Because you don’t want anyone to find out.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- Liberal Bias? CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien Accused by Right-Wing

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- Liberal Bias? CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien Accused by Right-Wing

If you’ve followed the career of CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien who’s also worked at NBC News and I’m sure other places and you don’t look at it from left, or right, but you judge her career instead, especially if you look at her documentaries and panel discussions, its, pretty clear she comes at her job from a political viewpoint. The whole series Black and Brown in America is a good example of that. I’m not saying she’s not qualified, or doesn’t do a good job, but she approaches issues from the left and would probably be better suited for being on MSNBC than CNN.

Soledad, could be the Bill O’Reilly of NBC News, who takes on people in power from both sides, but also has an ideological viewpoint. That she’s not afraid to make public, but goes after people on both sides. To give you an example of Bill O’Reilly. Back in the summer of 2003, when it was discovered that there wasn’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we went to war there, based on bogus evidence to put it nicely, O’Reilly announced he was done with President Bush.

O’Reilly announced he was done with President Bush and was no longer going to carry his water for him. He goes after people on both sides, but is definitely a right-winger himself, but not a puppet. Well Soledad O’Brien could be that watchdog for the left and even take on leftists. When she feels she should, which I’m sure he has in the past. She could be Mike Wallace, or Ted Koppel of CNN. Someone who goes after people in power. Not to bring people down, but to hold them accountable and make them back up their argument and policies, or pay a price for it.

As far as Soledad O’Brien’s interview with John Sununu Sr. President H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff, as well as former Governor of New Hampshire, I think she did a good job. Politicians don’t like to be asked anything that could put them on the defensive and get them off of their talking points. When they do interviews like this, they see their role as speaking up for the candidates they support and speaking out against the candidates they oppose. And anything that’s a tough question which is what anchors get paid to do if they are news anchors which is what Soledad is.

Good anchors put politicians on the defensive when they feel they need to, so what they do instead of answering the questions, is to respond by taking it out on the anchor. For example, ‘how can you ask me that question, when we should be talking about Joe Jones horrible foreign policy. And my candidate’s great record at creating jobs and balancing budgets, or whatever.’ Soledad was quoting off of Mitt Romney’s website and wanted a response from Governor Sununu about it.

Is there a leftist bias in the media whether it’s liberal or progressive, of course there is. Just like there’s a rightist bias in the media as well coming from Neoconservatives. Which is why people who are interested in the news, shouldn’t put all of their eggs in one basket (so to speak) when it comes to gathering their news. And if you are a regular viewer of MSNBC or FNC, I suggest you checkout other news networks, so you can get all the truth, instead of part of it.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Freaking Ridiculous Fine For Swearing

Ana Kasparian- TYT Baby Girl
The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Freaking Ridiculous Fine For Swearing

Warning! Too all of you sensitive viewers who are offended by cussing, you may want to close your eyes as you attempt to read this blog. Because it may have language inappropriate for your sensitive eyes and brain.

If fining people for what they say in public and I’m talking about what people say to each other, we obviously don’t have a constitutional right to threaten people, but that’s not what this is about, but what people say in public that’s not threatening especially when they are angry and have a right to be or are inpatient, if fining people for blowing off steam (to put it mildly) is not a violation of the First Amendment, the constitutional right to free speech, then the First Amendment is useless. And should be thrown out and we no longer live in a liberal democracy, but a police state.

Which perhaps some Americans would like us to be so we can become what we say we are against and get on other countries for being. Fines for foul language, perhaps they make sense on TV, especially for kids who don’t understand that language yet. And we don’t want them cussing out their parents and teachers and that sort of thing and hopefully vice-versa, all right. I can go along with that, but fining people for what they say on the streets, even when they aren’t cussing at anyone in particular, is fucking bullshit. And I already put out the warning so don’t get on me for that now.

For someone in my age range and generation, I don’t cuss very often. People now judge other people for how much they cuss. You’ll have a hard time finding a comedian under fifty today who doesn’t fucking cuss their ass off when performing and in general. They do it to sound cool and to be funny. For a lot of people cussing is a way of communication, that’s how they talk, you won’t find a hit fictional show on cable (and not just HBO) that doesn’t have a ton of cussing. A shit load even, (if you prefer) because they want their shows to sound cool.

And that’s how you communicate to young people today. For me cussing is a form of expression, I cuss to express anger, or amazement. Like, “holy shit that building is huge!” Or that guy is fat to use as examples. But I’m not one whose blown away by things like that very often and a pretty even-tempered guy and will say what the hell, or get the hell out of here, that sort of thing, instead of what the fuck. So when I do drop F or S Bombs, you know I meant it and not just trying to sound cool.

But just because I don’t fucking cuss my ass off on a regular basis, doesn’t mean I believe others should be fined when they do. Because that’s just plain God Damn Fucking Stupid! Is your life so fucking boring that you have to regulate what comes out of other people’s mouths, when they aren’t threatening, or libeling people, or yelling fire in a crowded place? Is your thumb so far of your fucking ass, you don’t have anything better to do with your time? And that pretty much sums up how I feel about this Massachusetts so-called public decency law.

CNN: Senator Ted Kennedy's 1980 DNC Speech: The Dream Shall Never Die

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: CNN: Senator Ted Kennedy's 1980 DNC Speech: The Dream Shall Never Die

Had Democrats seen more of this during the primaries, may Ted Kennedy beats President Carter in 1980. You don't wait till the last speech of your presidential campaign to give your best speech. Especially after it's already been decided that you aren't going to win. Especially when you never figured out while you were running in the first place. Ted Kennedy, didn't want to be president. Not sure his family did either, but his supporters especially the Progressive Left in the Democratic Party, wanted him to run for president. That is why, plus the facts that President Jimmy Carter, was so unpopular politically and there was  a bad economy, a Democratic Congress, that Senator Ted Kennedy was obviously part of. Democrats were in serious trouble in 1980.

Looking back at it now, not sure if the Ted Kennedy presidential run hurt or helped President Carter. In a way it actually helped him, because the Democratic contest really got his reelection campaign going. And he just didn't beat Senator Kennedy in most of the primaries, but he trounced him. Teddy, didn't wain a major primary until March of 1980. But it hurt the President in the sense that now the party was divided between their Progressive Left and even George McGovern New-Left and their Center-Left. Their New Democratic Coalition that Jimmy Carter represented. Going up in the fall against a very united Republican Party that was all behind Ronald Reagan. And anxious to get back into power and win the White House back.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Progressive Economist Robert Pollin: The Full Employment Debate: How To Reach Full Employment

I don't like the term Full Employment, its a Progressive Utopian term, bogus even that would suggest that any available worker whose not retired. Has a job, we've never accomplished that, for the simple reason that everyday people are gaining jobs, others are losing there's. From either being laid off or getting fired because of cause but what we can have is an Economic System, thats still Capitalist, Liberal Capitalist even which is what I would prefer. Where most if not all the well educated workers in the country are working and have good jobs and the workers who are not working. They are either retraining or educating themselves so they can get a good job and even where we as a country are helping them get a good job. We got real close to that as late as 2000 and have slipping ever since under two different administrations. And thats what we should be moving back to, which is something I believe President Obama understands and will be pushing for if reelected. But is one reason why the 2009 American Recovery Act is so disappointing, because he had that opportunity, with low Interest Rates, where we could've borrowed around 2T$. And spent all of that money rebuilding the United States and passing Tax Cuts that would've encouraged Consumer Spending and Economic Growth.

To me as a Liberal Democrat, true Economic Freedom, is about the ability for individuals to be able to get themselves a good education. Work hard and be successful educating themselves and them with the ability to go get themselves a good job, based on the skills that they've obtained for themselves. Or even open up their own business and really have Economic Freedom, where their economic success in life, is based on how well they do in business. Doesn't mean someone has to work in business or own their own business to be economically successful. Just as along as they have the Economic Freedom to be able to do and then be financially rewarded based on how well they do. How productive they are and pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay. But not to the point where it discourages them from being productive in life. And then where people who have fallen are able to prepare themselves to go back to work and get help finding another job.

Workers obviously don't have to be in business to be successful in life, they can be successful as Public Servants or working for Non Profits. Just as long as they have the ability to decide for themselves what course they chart in life, where government is not holding them down through high taxes and regulations. And not trying to take care of them with their own money but where they are able to make those decisions for themselves.

All Histories: New Deal 1930's Government Promotional

All Histories: New Deal 1930's Government Promotional

The New Deal I believe has a mixed bag when it comes to the Great Depression as far as how it dealt with the Depression. Social Security and the minimum wage and perhaps a few other things like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, have all been success’. But the American economy ten years into the Depression which stared in 1931, or so and again the Depression took up most of Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms as President, the economy was still in fairly weak shape. A lot of what you probably see in this video is probably true, but they’re not going to give you the whole story. Americans went back to work during the 1930s, but a lot of other Americans were still out of work. Or not making the money that they use to and perhaps now working part-time.

If you look at the American economy in the 1930s and then go up to the 1940s, there’s no comparison. The 1930s, America is either in depression, or recession most of if not the whole decade. And was looking at unemployment levels of twenty-percent or more. The 1940s, thanks to World War II and I’m sure some government infrastructure investment, is where you see Americans go back to work and working good jobs. The 1940s and World War II, were huge economic booms for the American auto industry and the American military industry. All of those vehicles and equipment that was needed to fight World War II in Europe and Japan. And you obviously need good workers to build those vehicles and that equipment. And that is where the jobs are created.

Of course any government propaganda video is going to show you the highlights of what the current administration is working on and show their success’. So this film isn’t any different in that way. Which is why people need to know the difference between the whole truth and propaganda and do their own research. Not that government will lie to you necessarily of course, at least not all the time even though the best administration’s do lie, but they’re not going to tell you the whole story. But what they want you to hear, which is really the definition of propaganda. So what you need to do is find out the rest of the story and then be able to judge for yourself what is really going on. And how bad or good it actually is.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Young Turks: "DEA Head's Absurd Marijuana Testimony": The Obama Administration's Anti Science Approach To The War on Drugs

This is going to sound like a made up World but see if you stick with me for a moment. Imagine if we lived in a World of facts and science and we lived in this World back in 1971. When the United States declared War on Narcotics, not all Narcotics just some of them. Marijuana would've been declared legal then if not way before 1971, why because people back then would've seen the science and facts about it. A drug that has similar side affects to that of tobacco and alcohol, to legal drugs that for whatever reasons, which I bet have nothing to do with facts or science. Are both legal in the United States, even with the boatload of diseases that are both connected to them and the costs. They bring to our Healthcare System but we don't live in a World of facts and science, our Presidential Campaigns are perfect examples of that. Because as surprising at this may sound, or as hysterical as this may sounds, there are actually plenty of intelligent people in the Federal Government. I know shocking right please control yourselves, before you throw your backs out from laughing at that too hard. Because there's more, they see all of the facts and evidence when it comes to the War on Drugs, as well as people outside of the Federal Government.

They know exactly what the War on Drugs is about and what's it based on and it has almost nothing to do with facts or science. The Director of the USDEA testimony is a perfect example of that, when Democratic Representative Jared Polis asked her today. Is marijuana as dangerous as heroin and she replied essentially that all narcotic are dangerous, she dodged the question. Why because she either knows the answer which would hurt her agencies case in enforcing the War on Drugs. Or she's so ignorant about the War on Drugs, the War she's responsible in prosecuting and doesn't know the answer to this fundamental question. By the way Representative Polis gave her multiple opportunities to answer this basic fundamental question and she kept coming back with. All narcotics are dangerous, rather then answering is marijuana as dangerous as cocaine, heroin or meth.

Had the DEA Director and I apologize for not remembering her name said that marijuana is not as dangerous. As the other narcotics, the obvious followup would be why is it illegal and had she said marijuana is as dangerous, she would be asked to prove that, which she can't. The evidence of that is simply not there. And had she answered she doesn't know, that makes her look very ignorant about the main issue she has jurisdiction over.

FRSFreeStateNow: The Presidential Referendum?: How The GOP is Losing its Own Referendum

FRSFreeStateNow: The Presidential Referendum?: How The GOP is Losing its Own Referendum

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

PBS: The American Experience- President Lyndon B. Johnson: The Great Society

Source: PBS- President Lyndon B. Johnson, 36 POTUS-
Source: PBS: The American Experience- President Lyndon B. Johnson: The Great Society

I give credit to President Lyndon Johnson for taking on poverty in America as serious as he did. And understanding how poverty affects not only these people, but how it affects the rest of the country. Because it limits people in poverty ability to purchase products that are made by Americans and made in America. Which reduces our consumer spending, which lowers our economic growth. Meaning less jobs are created than would be created had more people had money to spend and we have less people living in the middle class. The lover our poverty rate is, the more consumer spenders we have in America, the higher our economic and job growth is, the less people we have actually living on public assistance in America. Reducing poverty in America is good for everybody, especially employers, because they have a larger crop of people to select from in who to higher. More people graduating from high school and actually getting a good education and moving on an getting a degree at a good school. It's also good for employers, because they would have more customers who can actually by their products, including more people who work for them and produce those products.

So lower poverty and a stronger larger middle class is good for the whole country, especially for the people who were once living in poverty. Because now they have the skills and a good job to take care of themselves, but it's also good for everyone else who had to pay the taxes to be able to take care of these people. While they weren't ready to take care of themselves, this is something that President Johnson understood. That was his vision anyway. What I don't think he quite figured out that President Nixon of all people figured out and then President Clinton put into law in the 1990s, was the best way to get people out of poverty, is through education, job training and then job placement into a good job. So they have the resources to take care of themselves. The Great Society has a lot of programs in it that were deigned to financially support people while they are in poverty, but doesn't do much to help them out of poverty.

We had a 13% poverty level in America by the time President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. That didn't happen by accident and people on the right especially have made the argument, that this was a result of the economic boom of that decade. And that was part of it, but if you are a low-skilled worker or a low-skilled person seeking work, you are not going to get a good job with those skills. No matter how good the economy is. But if you empower these people by putting them back in school and into job training, they'll benefit from the economic boom as well. The only people in America that are eligible for public assistance, are retired workers and seniors and people who don't earn enough money to financially support themselves. Or who aren't retired, but aren't earning any money on their own. They're on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance. So to move people out of poverty, people in poverty need the skills to get themselves a good job and not be eligible for public assistance at all. Because they're earning enough money on their own.

FRSFreeStateNow: President Obama Rips Paul Ryan On Medicare: How to Reform Medicare Instead

FRSFreeStateNow: President Obama Rips Paul Ryan On Medicare: How to Reform Medicare Instead

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Sam Seder: Why Paul Ryan is a Gift to Progressives: How Progressives can Save The Social Insurances They Love

If Paul Ryan is not enough motivation for Progressive Democrats to get out of their coffee houses and Union Halls or wherever they hang out at. To turn out and vote for President Obama for reelection in November, then I really don't know what the Hell will get them out and vote for the President and don't understand Progressive Democrats at all. Rather then voting for the Green Party that will be lucky to get 1% of the vote or sitting on their asses and not voting at all and bitching that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are. Evil but President Obama is a Corporatecrat or however they view him and we can't make a difference and so be it. For me as a Liberal Democrat voting for President Obama in 2012, is similar to why I voted for him in 2008. The best available Presidential Candidate available to vote for and its that simple, a lot of times the reason why I vote for people. Has to do with that reason, not because I exactly like that candidate or incumbent and sometimes I get to vote for people I actually like, like for Representative and Governor , Chris Vanhollen and Martin O'Malley of Maryland. As far a I'm concern and of course this not enforceable but if you don't vote, you don't have a credible right to complain. Because you didn't do your part to make things better.

A vote for the Romney/Ryan Ticket or not voting at all from a Democratic perspective, whether, you are left in my case, far left in other cases or middle. Is a vote for President Romney and a Tea Party Congress and from my perspective, further eroding of our Individual Freedom. With a boat load of Constitutional Amendments to come down the pike sponsored by Neoconservatives to do this. And if you are a Progressive, you should be worried about hopefully the things I just mentioned but also eroding of the Safety Net and the Federal Government as it relates to Social Insurance. Something else Democrats should be worried about with a President Romney and a Tea Party Congress, are Middle Class Tax Hikes that are already in the Romney Tax Plan. Putting more of the Tax Burden on the people who can at least afford to pay for it, thats why voting for the President is so critical.

2012 is not a Presidential Election that Liberal and Progressive Democrats can afford to sit out. Especially Progressives, Liberals will be there but the question is whether Progressives will be there, Paul Ryan will do his part to hurt the Republican Ticket enough and so will Mitt Romney will do his. But that all means nothing if Progressive Democrats don't show up to the polls and vote for President Obama.

Monday, August 13, 2012

"Defense Industry Wants Higher Taxes To Avoid Cuts": Sanity Has Finally Struck in The GOP

There has been talk in recent weeks in Congress especially amongst Senate Republicans, thats what about to come down in January. If the President and Congress don't reach a deal on the debt and deficit and we get across the board Budget Cuts and Tax Hikes, that we have to avoid that. Especially as it relates to the Defense Budget, that we have to avoid those cuts, even if that means closing Tax Loopholes or raising taxes on the wealthy. To avoid these Defense Cuts, even Fiscal Conservatives like Republican Senators Mike Crapo, Senator Lindsay Graham, RSenator Tom Coburn. Senator Lamar Alexander, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have suggested that closing Tax Loopholes is a better alternative, then the Defense Cuts. I use the term Fiscal Conservative loosely, because if you truly believe that Government Waste and Big Government are the problem, then Government Waste across the board is a problem. Then that would include the largest part of the Federal Budget, which is the Defense Budget, especially if you include the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of that package. And thats definitely Defense Spending, then that the Defense Budget definitely has to be part of this package, especially if you include all of the Developed Nations that Americans Tax Payers pay to defend.

I don't like across the board Budget Cuts anywhere in the Federal Budget, especially in the Defense Budget. The idea of Budget Cuts is about saving money and eliminating waste, cutting things just to cut them, even if they are effective and efficient, doesn't make sense. Whether its the Defense Budget or any other part of the Federal Budget, thats the main problem with the debt ceiling agreement last year. And closing wasteful Tax Loopholes to avoid across the board Defense Cuts, is a trade I would make 100% of the time, that doesn't mean that we can't afford to make cuts in the Defense Budget. The way to make savings in the Defense Budget, is to cut back in areas that we don't need to spend money on. Like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea and Europe, all of those countries except for Afghanistan and Iraq are Developed Nations that can afford to defend themselves.

All of this tells me that Senate Republicans including the Minority Leader are ready to avoid making some serious Defense Cuts. That the President or Congress doesn't want to make and that we may see a deal in the Senate reached amongst Democrats and Republicans to avoid this. That will include new revenue as it relates to the wealthy to avoid these cuts and if that happens, that will put. More pressure on House Republicans to wake up and act reasonable.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

FORA-TV: Tom Friedman Interviewing Gary E. Knell- A Progressive Bias? 'NPR Seeks Balance Not Truth'

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: FORA-TV: Tom Friedman Interviewing Gary E. Knell- A Progressive Bias? 'NPR Seeks Balance Not Truth'

First of all, I’m not a fan of NPR National Public Radio, because their reporting does look somewhat slanted to me. Their reporters and anchors sound like a combination of both reporters and analysts and that’s not the job of reporters. The job of reporters is report on what they cover. And report the facts that come up, not make an assumption of what’s going on and report the facts that back of their case. But to actually report on what’s going on. Which is also different from not knowing anything about what you are covering, but to understand the issues you cover and report the facts that come up.

The job of analysts is to analyze what these facts mean and how they’ll effect whatever the issue is. For example a reporter would report lets say 120K jobs were created last month. And then the analyst, hopefully an economist or someone with a background in economics or business, will analyze what the jobs report means. Whether it’s a good sign for the economy or not. Or somewhere in between, what you get with NPR are reporters that have an ideological slant. People with progressive leanings who cover stories and report the facts that back up what they think about the story.

I’m not saying the NPR is the Fox News of the left, because with NPR you do get a lot of factually based info. You just don’t get most or all the info many times and you get the info that backs up how Progressives feel about these issues. Where except for a few exceptions with Fox News, you get the right-wing slant and a lot of right-wing commentary. The closest thing to Fox News from the left, would be MSNBC, but their audience is not nearly as big and they do have real reporters and anchors. Whereas Fox News except for Shep Smith and Chris Wallace, you have right-wing commentators playing the role of anchors and reporters.

And Fox News has essentially become the official mouthpiece of the Republican Party and right-wingers in America. But the difference being that Fox News is a private organization funded through advertising and the private sector. Whereas NPR is funded through tax revenue. If NPR wants to be a progressive mouthpiece when it comes to politics and current affairs and other issues they see as important, then they should be allowed to do that, but they should have to fund their own operations and business. Instead of taxpayers being forced to subsidize their progressive voice. And then we’ll truly see how much support there is out there for this type of media coverage.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

FORA-TV: Political Satirist Will Durst- Takes on Mitt Romney

Source: FORA-TV- Political satirist Will Durst-
Source: FRS Daily Journal

The best way to describe Mitt Romney the politician is to use his own gaffes, I mean words his own thoughts. He said he’s not a politician, which might be technically true in the sense that he currently doesn’t hold public office. But why is that, because he has a very hard time getting elected to anything, except in 2002 when he was elected Governor of Massachusetts. But that’s not the whole story, he ran for President in 2007-08 in wide-open GOP field and finished third. Despite having the best resources and perhaps organization. And loses a Senate election to a vulnerable Ted Kennedy in 1994.

Mitt, decides not to run for Senate against John Kerry in 1996, against another vulnerable Senator in John Kerry and decides to take a few years off from politics instead . But the man has been thinking about running for public office at least since 1992. He just hasn’t found a way to get elected except for 2002 as Governor of Massachusetts. The reason why he’s not a career politician, is because he keeps losing or can’t find an election he can win. Not because he’s only interested in being a successful businessman. He’s been thinking about being President of the United States since 2004 and started running in 2006. Its taken him six years just to win he Republican nomination.

It’s not just Mitt Romney’s gaffes that he’s not a career politician. That takes up a whole paragraph. Then there’s the one where he says he doesn’t care about the poor. Well pardon the term no shit Sherlock! Also in he news fire can burn human flesh and people can drown underwater. And concrete is hard, etc, no real news made here. Here’s a good one, he’s unemployed, actually he gets paid to run for president with all he money he raised running for President. He was fired from that back in 2008 when the GOP decided not to hire him to be their presidential nominee. He did managed to get another job running for president in 2009-10, in about three months, he’ll probably be fired again.

And then of course there all the flip-flops, like not being in favor of his own healthcare law that he singed into law in Massachusetts. He figured out that’s not going to fly and has decided he’s now in favor of Romney/ObamaCare. The best way to describe Mitt Romney without using his own words, imagine a slick used car salesmen. Who has the attitude, “I need to tell my customers what they need to hear for them to buy a car from me and where I’m wrong, I’ll try to fix this in the future.” Like saying a car that’s supposed to have four doors, but it only has three will keep you warm in the winter in Wisconsin with only three doors. Thats sums up Mitt’s flip-flops. “What do I have to say to this crowd to get their support and how do I change that around to get the support of the next crowd that I’m speaking to.” He’s a slick used car salesmen which unfortunately is a great way to describe a lot of American politicians.
FORA-TV: Political Satirist Will Durst- Takes on Mitt Romney