Emily Goldstein: ‘Yes, Diversity is About Getting Rid of White People & That’s a Good Thing’

Source:Beyond Highbrow- from Emily Goldstein.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing)” the author Emily Goldstein (who is either a master troll or incredibly ignorant — but probably a troll) makes an enthusiastic case for the end of white people.

Despite the massive online outrage over the article, Thought Catalog has left the article up, simply putting a warning before access. The site does have editors, so clearly someone thought it was acceptable to publish.

But it’s actually a hilarious article if you take it either as a joke or simply written by an idiot.

“Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world,” Goldstein writes. “Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.”

Someone tell Tibetans, Muslims in Myanmar, and Muslims in South Sudan that all their ethnic oppression would end if there weren’t any damn white people.

The author is also not aware of world demographics, as made clear by the statement “the world belongs to the minorities now” — as if white people are the majority race of the world.

“But other races are not as evil as whites are, and it’s important to remember that,” she writes. “The world belongs to minorities now, and they will make a much better, more peaceful world with what they’re given. Only when white people have ceased to exist will a peaceful and progressive society — free of racism and hatred — be possible.”

She also believes that white people are the only ones who are homophobic.

“When white people die out, so will racism, sexism, queerphobia, and all other forms of oppression.”

Yep, Ugandan gays will have nothing to fear after the imminent white genocide.

Goldtsein perhaps jumps the shark and reveals her true troll identity when she starts arguing for long prison sentences for “complaining whites.”

“Not to mention, why should whites receive any kind of benefits when the ultimate goal is to get rid of whites altogether? Finally, laws against hate speech will serve to prevent whites from complaining about this, as any white person who complains will be arrested, given a long prison sentence, and made an example of for the rest of the remaining white population.”

This is so obviously a troll…which I respect. Game recognize game. The piece has more than 1,700 comments, and Thought Catalog is reaping the reward of all the juicy rage clicks." 

From Matthew Ozburn 

“Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People”

Source:Vir M- I believe the woman here is Emily Goldstein. You would think a Jewish person would know better than to advocate for the elimination of an entire racial or ethnic group.

From Vir M

Not to even sound like I’m standing up for racists on the Far-Right, or Nationalists and people in the Tea Party and even Center-Right Conservatives, who aren’t racist in any way, because I disagree with the Far-Right as much if not more than I disagree with the Far-Left, but when people on the Right talk about leftist fascism and leftist racism, this is why.

This piece by, Emily Goldstein and Robert Lindsay is ( not even sure that person exists ) is all the fuel that the Right, Center and Far, need to say: “How about leftist racism, violence and bigotry?” Well, here it is when you argue that eliminating Caucasians from the world.

And not only that, if calling for mass-murder and genocide of an entire race of people is not bad enough, but not to offer any real evidence of why that would be a good thing. Which puts you in the same camp as an Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, or Saddam Hussein. And if you don’t like being in the same league with evil men like, then don’t join that league by publishing such hateful garbage. (And I’m being nice with that)

As someone who is not a hateful person, but Peter Schiff when he commented on Michael Moore’s statement a couple of years ago saying that: “Caucasian-Americans buy guns, because they’re afraid of African-Americans”, asked the question, “can you be racist against your own race?” Which might sound strange and it’s rare, but it does happen. It’s just that most people are smart enough not fall for that.

If someone believes their race is inferior to every other race and if you’re on the New-Left and Far-Left, depending on how hateful and warped you are, you might believe the Caucasian is inferior to every race in the world and you believe your race is essentially made up of bad, evil, inferior, hateful people, that would make you a racist against your own race. You would be guilty of committing a self-inflicted wound against yourself and your people. (So to speak) Who needs enemies with friends like that?

Thats the level of stupidity that America has to deal with. Racists on the Far-Right like Dylann Roof, who murders people in church simply because he doesn’t like their complexion. To racists on the Far-Left, calling for the death of Caucasians. And saying that would be a good thing.

As far as Robert Lindsay saying that Caucasians, representing the sole source, or major source of evil in the world: I guess he’s not familiar with the People’s Republic of China. That still locks up people for simply disagreeing with the Communist Government. Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who murdered people in his own country because they were from a different ethnicity. And I could add several African dictators to that. Slavery, is still legal in parts of Africa.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Talk about genocide and they fund anti-semitic groups who still attack Jews in Israel, simply because they’re Jewish. How about North Korea and the Communist Government starving their own people. Sending them to work camps and making slaves out of them. I already mentioned Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his murders of Kurdish-Iraqis.

Racism, is racism whether it comes from the Right, or Left. And just because someone might let it slide, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just means someone didn’t bother to mention it, or ignored it, perhaps for partisan political reasons. And because of our liberal First Amendment, extremists, Far-Left and Far-Right have a very liberal amount of freedom of speech. And that even covers racism, just as long as they aren’t calling for violence even because of their racist beliefs. And because of that, people who aren’t warped, who have at east one foot on the ground and a level of intelligence and sanity, I at least believe have a responsibility to call out the racists for what they are exactly.

President Barack Obama: Eulogy at Charleston Shooting Funeral of Clementa Pinckney

Source:You Hot News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking in Charlottesville, South Carolina.

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t imagine anything worst than being murdered in a house of worship. A place, that is supposed to be a house of peace. I mean, if you’re not safe in a church in America, where would you be safe? And yet this is where these members of the Charleston AME Church were murdered. And why, because of the so-called accused murderer Dylann Roof, hated African-American people? His hatred was so strong, his faith in people was so weak, that he murdered people in church simply because they were members of a different race and had a different complexion. These murders, were simply pure evil. Perhaps something that only an Adolph Hitler and his followers would approve of.

I believe that is what President Obama was hitting on here. Yes, remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney and the fact that he was murdered just perhaps because he was an African-American Reverend. But also acknowledging why everyone was there in the first place. Why they were eulogizing a man of 41 years. When I think of how young Reverend Pinckney was when he was murdered and then add the fact that he was murdered in his church and for no other reasons than the color of his skin, it makes me really angry and wanting to see his murderer get similar treatment. But just not in a peaceful place like a church. But in some hell hole underground, where only Devils are welcomed and expected to attend.

South Carolina, I’m sure has its wonderful qualities and has aspects that make it a great place to live. And I believe Charleston is an example of that, but it has a level of hatred and bigotry that needs to be overcome. So it becomes that state where all Americans who are good productive people are welcome. And it doesn’t become a state where people aren’t even safe in church simply because of their race and complexion. President Obama, didn’t speak to that and to South Carolina as a whole and I’m just adding this myself. But no American should have to even contemplate being murdered in a house of worship. Especially just because of their race and complexion. And gunned down in the prime of their life.

Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court & ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Source:On The Economy-

Source:The New Democrat

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

The Huffington Post: David Woolner: 'Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago'

Source:The Huffington Post- in Chicago, Illinois, to cover Hillary Clinton's presidential announcement.

Source:The New Democrat

"Hillary Clinton's decision to hold the first major public rally of her campaign at Four Freedoms Park in New York City reminds us not only of the many challenges the United States has faced in the past, but also the many challenges we face today as we seek to build a better future for ourselves and for our children. 

Hillary Clinton's decision to hold the first major public rally of her campaign at Four Freedoms Park in New York City reminds us not only of the many challenges the United States has faced in the past, but also the many challenges we face today as we seek to build a better future for ourselves and for our children.

It was on January 6, 1941, in one of the darkest moments of the Second World War, after Hitler had announced his decision to establish a "new order" in occupied Europe, that Franklin Roosevelt took to the world's airways to propose a different idea -- a "moral order," based not on "the tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb," but on four fundamental human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear." 

From The Huffington Post 

"Hillary's official campaign launch at Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island, New York City. She lays out her vision for the country, inspired by the stories she’s heard from everyday Americans." 

Source:Hillary Clinton- announcing his 2016 presidential campaign.

From Hillary Clinton

If today’s so-called Progressives, (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) believe that Hillary Clinton is going to run for President as the female Bernie Sanders and the other self-described Democratic Socialist, or even as an, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest: (which I’m not a fan of and especially heavy metal) they have another thing coming. 

Hillary, will speak to Democratic economic concerns and the broader economic concerns of the country and even offer policies to address those concerns. But don’t expect some expansion of the New Deal or a Swedish welfare state. Other than new infrastructure investment, job training for displaced, unemployed and low-skilled, low-income workers.

Center-Left Democrats, which is Hillary Clinton is one, should be all about freedom and pushing for it and that includes economic freedom. But they need to be more clever and go even further and put more thought into how we accomplish it. Instead of being about individual rights and trying to out socialist Socialists and what government can do for people and how government can take care of people, they should be about individual rights. And what government can do for people who are struggling to move ahead, or even keep current pace, to be able to move forward on their own and achieve economic freedom for themselves by empowering them to improve their own skills. And encouraging more economic, especially small business development. Even for people who are current unemployed or underemployed.

Democrats, could expand economic freedom, by first getting elected and getting reelected. But to do that, by talking to Americans who are struggling regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, that they have a plan to help them get ahead: 

Improve their skills through further education and job training, including college. 

Infrastructure investment for underserved communities. 

Small business expansion and even cooperatives for workers who are struggling to move ahead and give them the opportunity to become successful small business owners. 

But if Democrats talk about how big government can take care of you, if we just give them more money and not have to do things for ourselves, it will be 1972 George McGovern again. Because Americans, are still a people that like to move ahead, live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Captive Audience (1962)

Source:Alfred Hitchcock TV Series- left to right: Arnold Moss & Ed Nelson.

Source:The New Democrat

The Captive Audience, is about a man Warren Barrow, played by James Mason, who is a mystery writer, who at the very least wants his publisher to believe that he’s going to kill his girlfriend’s husband and then later his girlfriend, Janet West, played by Angie Dickinson. And sends his publisher, Victor Hartman, played by Arnold Moss, what today would be called a cassette book. Barrow, has written a book on tape about the murders that he wants his publisher to believe that he’s committed. Barrow, at the very least, is unstable, after losing his wife in a car accident and suffering brain injuries that he’s never recovered from.

Victor Hartman, brings in one of his other writers, Tom Keller, played by Ed Nelson, to listen to Barrow’s self-confession tapes, to see what Keller thinks of the tapes. Hartman and Keller, are trying to figure out whether Barrow has just completed his latest murder mystery, or is he serious about murdering these two people. His girlfriend and her husband. They decide that Barrow is serious about these murders and even talk to him about his book. And give him some constructive criticism about his book. Barrow, being unstable, doesn’t take the criticism well and freaks out about it. And takes it as if Hartman and Keller simply don’t understand the book.

Angie Dickinson, is hardly an angel on this show. Just looks like one, but her character Janet West, is married to a wealthy man whose old enough to be her father and she’s not in love with him. She uses men to get what she wants and uses Barrow as well and doesn’t love him either. And this is all part of why Barrow is at the very least considering murdering her. He’s very unstable and doesn’t handle rejection and being used very well. They do a very good job with this episode of not making it clear whether Barrow actually murders his girlfriend, or is this simply part of his book. He’s writing a murder mystery that actually doesn’t happen in real-life. And it's one of the better murder mysteries that I at least, have ever seen.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Murder Case (1962)

Source:Alfred Hitchcock TV Series- Gena Rowlands & John Cassavetes.

Source:The New Democrat

This is one of the better episodes of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, simply because of the people in it. You have two up incoming actors Diana Justin, played by Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands and Lee Griffin, played by John Cassavetes, who were once a couple themselves, who meet again on set in London for a play they’re in. They discover that they’re still hot for each other and want to get back together. The problem is, Diana is married to Charles Justin, played by Murray Matheson. Charles, is a very wealthy jewelry dealer, who is also old enough to be Diana’s father. To put it mildly, Diana is not with Charles because she loves him. But that is fine with Charles, as long as she makes him feel good.

This new couple, sets out to murder Diana’s husband. They fail once with the breaks in Charles’s car and try it again. Another thing I like about this show, is Charles is not rich, because he’s stupid, or dense. He knows that Diana and Lee are back together and might even try something dangerous. Which is why he sends his wife on vacation to get her away from her boyfriend. Diana, figures out that Charles is on to her, but Charles still wants her. And if you’re familiar with Gena Rowlands, you can easily see why. Doesn’t take a genius, or even someone with average intelligence to figure it out. And Charles, is not going to give up his goddess wife without a clean fight.

Murder Case, despite its simplistic and dull as a brand new pencil title, is one of the better episodes in the Alfred Hitchcock Hour series. It has a great cast and a great plot. Normally in shows like this when the older wealthy husband figures out that his young gorgeous sexy wife, is having an affair with a young man, he dumps his wife as soon as he can. He hires detectives, he gets all the evidence that he needs to get a clean divorce. So he doesn’t have to pay his cheating wife anything. But Charlie, fights for his wife and knows exactly what is going on all the way up to the end. And is just one example of why this is such a great show.

Sam Seder: 'The Rise of the New Left With Cliff Schecter'

Source:The Majority Report- talking about the New-Left in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Cliff Schecter joined us last Friday to discuss how the Bill De Blasio wins means a resurgence of an economically progressive left, why we are leaving the age of Reagan and Clinton behind, why younger voters are so economically left wing and how Clinton and Obama governed from the right...

From The Majority Report

I actually agree with a lot of what Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter and are saying here. Which might be the first and last times I ever say that. But they’re also being overly optimistic. The Millennial Generation, is the largest generation that we’ve ever had. And they’re still very young and even if they have the largest support of socialism than any generation that we’ve seen since the 1930s, (or whatever) that doesn’t mean this is a socialist generation.

The Millennial’s are made of what I call Paul Conservative Libertarians, (named for Ron and his son Rand Paul) and then you have Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists. And then you have what I at least call a classical liberal wing of this generation, people who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want big government running their lives for them. Which is why they support things like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, big believers in privacy and personal freedom in general. But they also don’t want big government in their wallets and trying to manage their economic affairs either.

Millennial’s, whether they say it or not, like private enterprise and capitalism in general. A lot of them are small business managers and owners. The ones, who’ve actually been able to find jobs. And don’t believe their business should have to pay a lot in taxes. But they believe government needs to do certain things for us like education, infrastructure, environmental protection, regulating predators, a safety net for people who need it. But they don’t want that Bernie Sanders socialist superstate that’s going to tax a lot of our money away from us to take care of us. And they don’t want big government in our personal affairs either.

The presidential candidate next year that can speak to young people especially Millennial’s, who says that government doesn’t have all the answers and shouldn’t try to do everything for everybody but can be a force for good by empowering people to take control over their own lives, will win this generation and probably win Independents in general as well. Who also believe in a limited government that does what we all need it to do in the areas of security, economic investment, to use as examples. 

You win these two huge groups and Millennial’s tend to be independent as well, that candidate will be the next President of the United States. I could be wrong about this, but I’m willing to bet it with anyone.

Black Rose Books: Dimities Roussopoulos- The New Left: Legacy & Continuity

Source:Black Rose Books-

Source:The New Democrat

I think I agree with Dimitrios Roussopoulos on just about everything here. Pre-1960 or so, the Left in America, as least the Center-Left, was made up for Liberals and Progressives, who believed in things like civil liberties, personal freedom and economic freedom and that government should help people in need help themselves so they can live in freedom, as well as help the middle class be able to move up. But they also believed in a strong defense and if anything perhaps more anti-communist than the Right in America. Especially if you look at Liberal Democrats like John Kennedy. And believed in being strong at home both economically and militarily, so other countries like Russia, wouldn’t want to attack you.

But then in the 1960s, you have the Baby Boomers coming of age. Who were much more radical and revolutionary with their own politics. And didn’t think that status-quo or establishment America was good enough for them. And you have the Vietnam War and all of these new leftist radical kids in school, who didn’t like the establishment. If anything hated the establishment and wanted to see it overthrown. And you have all of these movements on campus trying to overthrow the establishment and protest the issues of the day. The Vietnam War, poverty in America, the wealth gap, gays coming out of the closet and starting to want their freedom as Americans.

The New Left, then was a radical Left and even Far-Left and still is today. And I don’t mean that as a criticism, but when you’re talking about Democratic Socialists and even Communists in a country like America, you’re talking about people who are pretty radical. And that is what the New-Left was made up of back then and are still represented by the Tom Hayden’s, Bill Ayers’s, Chris Hedges’s, Thom Hartmann’s and others. And publications like Salon, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthDig, TruthOut and many others today on the New-Left in America. That might be Center-Left and Sweden and perhaps a few other countries, but Far-Left in America.
Source:Black Rose Books

WUSA-TV: Rick Snider- Will United Stadium Deal Lure Redskins to RFK?

Source:WUSA-TV-

Source:The New Democrat

The Redskins, are coming back home, so to speak. Back to Washington and back downtown in the nation’s capital where they belong. Getting United out of RFK Stadium with the new United stadium deal, is one of the keys to doing that. So they can either renovate RFK, or knock it down and build a new one. The City, wants the Redskins back, even if they are still called the Redskins, or not. The name, is simply about Far-Left political correctness politics, more than anything else. The Redskins, want to come home. Dan Snyder, wants the Redskins home. The City Government, wants the Redskins home. Now, it’s just a matter in how that happens. New RFK, or renovate the old one.

Me personally, I would like to see the Redskins come back to RFK. And knock the two upper decks, but leave in the lower bowl. And build the new stadium with the skyboxes and everything else the stadium needs, on top of the lower bowl. So you keep in the fan atmosphere un the stadium as far as the noise, with seats moving up and down. And the fans being on top of the action. But with the skyboxes and seating capacity and every other modern feature that NFL stadiums need to be profitable. And even add a retractable roof, to make it a very attractive spot for the Super Bowl and other events at the stadium.

The Redskins are coming home. The City of Washington, had finally figured out economic development and what you need to be a financially prosperous city. And has even become a fairly safe big city of six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or so and still growing. I think the only questions are about when and how. New RFK, or renovate the old one and when. 2020, or after that, because the Redskins want to come home. Their fans, certainly want them back in the city. And I think Washington wants their NFL team back in the city as well. And negotiating the final stadium deal in the city is the last hurdle to get over to make it happen.

Gresham College: Professor Vernon Bogdanor- Aneurin Bevan & The Socialist Ideal

Source:Gresham College- Professor Anuerin Bevan. 

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not that familiar with Aneurin Bevan, but as a Socialist, he seems to differ from Karl Marx, at least in the sense that Bevan’s brand of socialism was democratic. That you got elected to power and to govern and brought your policies with you and your form of government with you. Whereas Karl Marx was more of a revolutionary. And was always talking about revolution, similar to Fidel Castro. That the people should rise up and take over the government and keep power once they get in. Along with bringing their socialist policies about.

The Democratic Socialist and the Marxist are different. The Democratic Socialist sees private enterprise and even capitalism as perhaps a necessary evil in order to have a functioning economy where as many people as possible can do well. As well as the financing mechanism to fund the welfare state, that will take care of everyone’s basic necessities in life. Like health care and health insurance. And Bevan was one of the designers of the British government-run and owned health care system. Health care, obviously being a basic necessity that we all need to live well.

What all Socialists have in common and perhaps what would be the so-called Socialist Ideal, is that they all see a world where there wouldn’t be any poor, or rich people. There goal is not so much freedom, but equality. That everyone is the same economically with no more, or less than anyone else. Which is why Socialists get labeled as Utopians, because they see that Utopia, or paradise where everyone thrives and doesn’t have to go without, or has too much. At least according to everyone else in society.
Source:Gresham College

Grit-TV: Russ Feingold: 'Politics For The People'

Source:Grit-TV- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) & Laura Flanders.

Source:The New Democrat

This interview was taped in late 2010, when then Senator Russ Feingold, was literally battling for his Senate career and perhaps political career as well. So that is a little disappointing for me, because I would’ve liked of seen Laura Flanders interview Senator Feingold today. Now that he’s been out of Congress for over four years now and looking at other career options for the future, like running for president. Where I think he would make a hell of a Progressive, or Liberal presidential candidate. That could raise a lot of money online simply by communicating to younger Americans. And along with Martin O’Malley, I would definitely look at a Feingold for president campaign. As liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a little profile of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Who you can definitely tell he’s from Wisconsin from how he speaks. Today’s so-called Conservatives love to talk about how fiscally conservative they are. And yet its Liberal Democrat Russ Feingold who consistently didn’t bring pork back to Wisconsin when he was in the Senate. Because he didn’t think those projects had real economic value to his state and saw them as fiscally irresponsible. Who was a true budget hawk on the Senate Budget Committee. Who consistently voted to have more sunlight in the Federal budget. And not just defense, but the budget as a whole. And part of that was voting against pork-barrel projects in Congress, even if they went to Wisconsin.

So-called Conservatives today, like to talk about how much they believe in individual freedom. And yet its just the last five years, or so that they started speaking out against the Patriot Act and government spying, thanks to the Tea Party. Senator Feingold, voted against the 2001 Patriot Act, that gave big government those powers over individuals lives. He also voted against the 2003 Iraq War. He’s a Democrat who is about as anti-establishment as they come. He’s someone who won’t go along to get along. That if there is a debate and even fight worth having and that should be had, he’ll do it and worry about the consequences of his own career later on. Unlike today’s establishment career politicians, that seem to be more interested in getting reelected and their next career move, more than anything else.

And because Senator Feingold was so anti-establishment, he wasn’t very popular in the Senate, at least in the Democratic Caucus. Because he wouldn’t vote for things, or against simply because the Democratic Leader needed his vote. And is someone who will vote against big government policies that violate our civil liberties, even if that means he may look soft on terror. And vote against endless war authorizations, even if that means he looks soft on defense. If they give the President a blank check when it comes to war-making and leaving Congress in the dark and not knowing what the executive is doing when it comes to national security.

Not saying that Russ Feingold will be our next President, but Hillary Clinton needs to know that she’s running for President in the Democratic Party. And if she wants to run as a mushy-middle centrist independent, who never takes any tough stances on key issues that come with political risks, then maybe the Democratic Party is not the right party for her and she should run as an Independent. Russ Feingold, would force Hillary to take real positions on the key issues that the country faces and that Democrats care about. Like civil liberties, war authorization, economic and job growth, expanding the middle class, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, War on Drugs and I could go down the line. And would make a great presidential candidate.
Source:Grit-TV

Salon Magazine: Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Crackpot

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

It depends on what you mean by progressive, to sort of paraphrase what Bill Moyers said about, “it depends on what you mean by left-wing.” If you mean left-wing is somehow out of the political mainstream in America, well again how left are you talking about? Center-Left, Far-Left, somewhere in between? If you mean by Progressive, that the job of government is not to manage the lives of everyone and take care of everyone. But instead have a healthy social insurance system that people can use when they need it and have enough money when they retire and guaranteed health insurance, properly regulate the private sector, but not try to run and tax it to the point, that government essentially owns it, then yeah, that’s pretty progressive and very mainstream. Center-Left American politics.

But, Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress, is exactly that. And yes, Socialists are considered mainstream in anywhere in Scandinavia and Britain and France as well. But those countries are very different from America ideologically and even Canada and Germany as well. Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were all supporters of the American economic system. They didn’t put it down, or say America should be more like this country, or that country.

TR, FDR, Truman and LBJ, liked the American private enterprise capitalist model. But also understood that in an economy with a very large private sector, you’re going to have winners and losers. As well as predators who make money from hurting the innocent. And that you needed a government to help people who fall down in the private enterprise system. As well as a regulator to punish and prevent predatory behavior. This right here is the American progressive economic model. Doesn’t sound like Scandinavia, where you have an unitarian national government essentially responsible for the well-being and economic welfare of the entire country.

Bernie Sanders, who I have a lot of respect for, simply for his candor and honesty and even a few issues we agree on, like infrastructure investment, says America should look at Sweden and we should become more like them. If ever Senator Sanders became President Sanders, would move America last the social insurance safety net model, in a private enterprise system. And create a superstate, where the Federal Government would assume the responsibility and take over for the states and individuals when it comes to our well-being. He wouldn’t nationalize the economy, but nationalize certain functions of the economy that he doesn’t believe should be left for private companies and individuals. And tax and regulate other companies to the point that would become essentially public utilities and have to have the country’s best interest at heart.

The Progressive Democrat, the Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as Franklin and Harry Truman’s and LBJ’s, aren’t extreme. Center-Left and on the Left, but not extreme. When you move further Left, you get to the Socialists. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and move further left and you’re looking at the Marxists and other statists on the Left. And they represent the Far-Left in America, even if they are as mainstream in Scandinavia, as Liberals and Conservatives are in America. Bill Moyers, is right in the sense that progressivism isn’t extreme in America. But democratic socialism, when you’re talking about a superstate there to take care of everyone and meet everyone’s basic necessities in life, is pretty Far-Left, at least in America.

Salon Magazine: Joan Walsh: 'White Progressives Racial Myopia: Why Their Colorblindness Fails Minorities and The Left'

Source:Salon- the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Green Party in 2016? Actually, the Green Party wouldn't support and all Caucasian ticket. I just thought I would throw it out there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.

But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech." 

From Salon 

"U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Thom Hartmann why he decided to run for President of the United States in 2016.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Thom Hartmann

Joan Walsh mentioned in her piece, that Bernie Sanders attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 I Have a Dream speech. Sanders, was a college student at this point. And she also suggests that Senator Sanders not making race and so-called racial and class issues not a part of his presidential campaign is some how a mistake. 

But, what is Dr. King’s Dream? A society where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He wanted a race-blind and color-blind society. Dr. King, is a hero of Senator Sanders and their politics, especially on economic policy are very similar. Dr. King, would be called a Democratic Socialist today as well. And perhaps would even embrace the label like Senator Sanders.

This is going to sound strange, given that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and all, but he’s the voice of reason, or Moderate on the New-Left in America. Senator Sanders, presidential campaign won’t be about racial and class issues. But building a society where all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, however else they were born, can succeed in America. 

You don’t get to a racial and color-blind society if you’re always race conscience and judging people by race and color. And automatically assuming they look at the world in a way, because of their complexion and how they were raised. You get to a color-blind America by not judging people by their race and not always focusing on it. But instead judge people, as well, people, as individuals. Which I know is a radical notion for the Far-Left in America.

Bernie Sanders, similar to Barack Obama in 2008, who was criticized for the same thing by the Far-Left in America, is running for President of the United States. Not to be the President of this leftist group, or these group of Americans, or this section of America, or that one. And you only accomplish that by bringing, especially Democrats in the primaries behind you and to your campaign. Not by playing class warfare and having this group on your side, while you kiss off other Americans. Barack Obama, doesn’t win Indiana and North Carolina, or Virginia in 2008, by running as the African-American President. And telling Americans: “Its our time! Time we elect an African-American president and I’m that candidate!”

As much as the Far-Left in America says they love Martin King, they simply don’t understand him, or agree with his dream. They’re not looking for a colorblind and race blind America. But to continue that, but do it differently and instead of having African-Americans be judged by their race from redneck and preppy Caucasians, have minorities and so-called Progressive Caucasians, judge Caucasians they disagree with by their race. And blame all of America’s troubles on so-called White bigots and White bigotry. 

But again Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. And wants to create America where all Americans can succeed and do well. And not fail or succeed, because of how and where they were born.

Chris Hedges: 'Karl Marx Was Right'

Source:Truth Dig- Karl Marx is for Socialists, what Anglo-Saxon-Protestants think Jesus Christ is for them.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m really tired of this old debate between capitalism and socialism, as if they are two competing ideologies. That they are complete opposites of each other, when they’re not. The opposite of a capitalist, would be a Marxist, or a statist. Someone who is completely against private property and private rights, other than maybe when it comes to personal property and one’s homes and transportation. But that the central state is in control and owns and runs the rest of the economy. And there are very few countries left with economic systems like that. North Korea, a country that can’t even feed itself, is one of the very few countries left with a state-owned command and control economic system.

Socialism and capitalism, are not complete opposites of each other. You can be both. Senator Bernie Sanders, everybody’s favorite Democratic Socialist now, is a Socialist. But he’s also in favor of capitalism and believes in property rights. But what makes him different from, gee I don’t know a Conservative, or a Liberal even, is how much of a role he would give the Federal Government. Senator Sanders, would still leave most of the American economy in private hands. But have government take over what Socialists like to call the basic necessities of life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement and perhaps a few others. With the private sector still producing all the transportation, technology, housing, food, agriculture, entertainment, to use as examples.

Chris Hedges, is a Democratic Socialist, but he’s also a capitalist. He’s an editor at the private democratic socialist publication TruthDig. He doesn’t work for the government, or work for some state-owned enterprise and I don’t think he ever has. He’s worked in private sector journalism in one form or the other his whole career. And is also an author and has made a very good living and built a very good career for himself in the American private enterprise capitalist system. Same thing with private filmmaker Michael Moore, who also likes to put down American capitalism. But Moore has used the same system that he says he doesn’t like to become a millionaire from the films he’s made.

It’s not a matter of whether you have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not. At least for most of the world and all the developed world now. But role for government do you have in that private enterprise system. Especially the central state and how big of a central state do you have and what exactly do you have it doing. What services does it provide for the people and at what cost to the people. Which is called taxation and also how big of a regulatory state do you have to oversee the private sector in the economy. But it is no longer a debate between the capitalist and the Socialist, because the Socialist will also most likely be a capitalist as well. But socialistic in nature. The real debate is what type of capitalist private enterprise system that you have.

The New York Times: Peter Wehner: 'Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?'

Source:The New York Times-

Source:The New Democrat

Peter Wehner, who normally writes for the neoconservative Commentary Magazine, who I read on a regular basis, including Wehner, because they do write interesting, provocative pieces and even intelligent and accurate pieces, is simply dead wrong here. Is Barack Obama to the left of Bill Clinton? Probably, but they essentially believe in the same things and govern fairly similarly as far as the policies that they push. Remember, the last minimum wage increase before Republican President George W. Bush, happened under President Bill Clinton. And President Clinton, is supposed to be this Centrist Democrat. Not Barack Obama.

Do they use different rhetoric and does President Obama talk more about income inequality and the need to do things so more Americans can climb up the economic ladder. Probably, but Bill Clinton as Governor in Clinton when he ran for president in 1992, talked about the same issues. Also, income inequality, was a bigger issue in 2009 and throughout the Obama Administration, then it was during the Clinton Administration. Who had eight years of economic and job growth. Never had a recession at any point in his presidency. The Clinton economy, was simply stronger than the Obama economy. President Obama, inherited the Great Recession, for crying out loud. So he had a much bigger hole to fill than anyone at least since Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The Democratic Party, perhaps has moved left, if you look at where the party is now on the War on Drugs, criminal justice reform, perhaps civil liberties in general, same-sex marriage and perhaps a few others. The Democratic Party, does have a Democratic Socialist wing in it. The Far-Left flank of the party, but the question has been have they’ve been growing, or are they just more vocal now. Thanks to the internet, social networking, blogging, smart phones and everything else. I would argue that they’ve always been in the Democratic Party and that their numbers are about what they’ve been since the 1970s. The McGovernite wing in the party has been there at least since 1968. But you could go back to when Henry Wallace ran for president in the 1940s.

The leadership of the Democratic Party in and out of Congress looks fairly similar to where the party was in the 1990s. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is from San Francisco. And yes they are further left than the country as a whole. But she also leads the Democratic Caucus in the House. That includes Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, but also New Democrat Liberals and FDR Progressives and whats left the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. And she is one of the most effective leaders not just in Congress, but in the country as a whole at representing her party and caucus and communicating with all of her factions.

I mean if you look at where the country is on economic opportunity, the War on Drugs, civil liberties, criminal justice reform, same-sex marriage, personal freedom issues in general, climate change and I could go on, the Democratic Party represents the country as a whole very well on these issues. It is not so much that the Democratic Party has moved left in the last twenty years, but that the country has. As we’ve become younger and more liberal and libertarian on these issues. Which is something that the Republican Party that has moved right since Ronald Reagan, has to figure and adjust to. If they want to remain competitive in the future.