Barney Frank: 'Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie'

Source:Politico Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I’m not writing this because I believe Bernie Sanders will ever be President of the United States, or believe he can even beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The second part, I’m not sure about, but Bernie’s chances of ever being President of the United States are somewhere between George McGovern and none. And if you don’t know who George McGovern is, you might be to dumb and young to read this. And I’m not writing this because I support Bernie Sanders for president either. Because I don’t and have already declared my support for Martin O’Malley. Who I believe is the only true Liberal Democrat in the race at least as far as what he’s actually accomplished.

I’m writing this, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to get a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Without having to explain to Democrats why she should be President of the United States. Other than who her husband is and do you remember the 1990s and oh by the way she’s a women and would be the first female President of the United States. Every single U.S. President that we’ve had at least since 1976 has had to go through a real primary process and has had to introduce them self and explain to voters why they want to be president and what they would do as president. Barack Obama 2008, George W. Bush 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 2000 and Jimmy Carter 1976. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? What makes her more special than those future president’s?

This idea that Representative Barney Frank was making that if Hillary gets a real primary challenge in 2016, that will make her weaker in the general election against whoever the Republicans decide to nominate for president, assuming they actually make that decision, is at least borderline ridiculous and I could use stronger language than that. First of all, Hillary was the frontrunner not just for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but also expected to be the next President of the United States. But she ends up losing the Democratic nomination to a junior Senator named Barack Obama. So lets say she wins the nomination in 2008, she probably loses to John McCain in the fall. Because the issues that she would’ve had in the primaries like not knowing why she wanted to be president and not having a vision, would’ve come out.

Being the frontrunner, just means you’re the favorite going in. That you have the most support and best finances than any other candidate in the race. Similar to an NFL team expected to be the favorite to win the Super Bowl in the summer. But Super Bowls aren’t won in the summer. And presidential elections and primaries aren’t decided more than a year from the presidential election. At the end of the day the person with the best campaign, organization, finances and message and vision for where they want to take the country not just wins their party’s nomination for president, but is elected the next president. And then Senator Obama, simply beat then Senator Clinton in all of these areas in 2008.

A year from now assuming that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, I don’t want her to still be in her centrist independent experience matters shell that she was in just a couple of months ago before Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley started to give her some real competition and forced her to give some real speeches and take real policy positions. And not know why she wants to be President of the United States. If Hillary hasn’t figured that out by now and figure out how to communicate that to Democratic voters, well one she might have a problem, but two she’s running out of time to figure that out. The first Democratic presidential debate will be in August, or September.

Political primaries, aren’t about destroying the frontrunner and doing whatever you can to beat that person at all costs and dividing the party. They are a real competition to decide who will not only be the next leader of the party, but the next leader of the country. And in this case the most important job in the world which is President of the United States. This is not something that should be handed out to the person with best name ID, or who happens to be the most popular in the party in the beginning. Democratic primaries at least, make Democratic presidential candidates better. Because it forces candidates to deal with issues and even their own concerns early on. While they still have time to deal with them and fix them. The competition that Hillary is getting right now, will only make her better if she handles it correctly and successfully address’ it. And if not, then maybe she shouldn’t be the next Democratic nominee for president, because she didn’t earn it.

Prakash RP: 'On The Definition of Communism'

Source:Communist Party USA? 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Communism is the abolition of the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the abolition of the exploitation of women by men as well. And with the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and women by men, the exploiting class ceases to exist, consequent on which its very opposite number, the class of the exploited, also disappears. Communism also means the abolition of the commodity economy, which ensures the perfectly equitable distribution of wealth and income, with which both the rich and the poor as well as the super-rich and the abjectly poor become nonexistent too. Thus, Communism is also the abolition of classes. 

Communism does away with the production for profit. The communist mode of production is the production for consumption. Goods and services produced under the communist mode of production are not commodities. They are meant for consumption alone. They are not by any manner of means meant for sale, i.e. for making money. In actual fact, Communism does away with all buying and selling operations, hence all markets, i.e. places meant for buying and selling, and money too. Communism is the abolition of both the institution of matrimony and its opposite public prostitution. Communism also abolishes both overwork and idleness ( both enforced and wilful ). And above all, Communism creates an environment that fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living."  

From Praka Shrp 

"First episode in a series. Feel free to suggest improvements.

In this episode we'll define some terms.

Socialism:

-Worker Control of the means of production

-Worker Ownership of the means of production

-A socialist state is a state where working class has taken state power and the means of production are owned in common

Communism:

-A higher stage of socialism

-Stateless(as society progresses the state "withers" away. This will be discussed in a later episode)

-Super abundance of resources." 

Source:Marxist-Leninist Theory- the People's Republic of China.

From Marxist-Leninist Theory

I think I got the broader goals of what communism is supposed to be now. That there should be no profits, that a country is a community, which is where Communist comes from. That the whole community should literally share everything with out anyone owning anything. So that would eliminate property rights all together and essentially make everything in society under the ownership of the central communist state. The state, would even own someone’s home where they live. The state, would own our cars and even clothes. No such thing as a private sector. Why? Because there’s no such thing as property rights.

So even in true communist state, things like opposition parties would be outlawed. Why? Because at least in America the state doesn’t own political parties. They’re own and run by private individuals. So if Prakash RP, a self-described Communist and his definition of communism is correct, plus what I just wrote about communism, based on what I read from his blog, how does this version of communism any different from the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China before they legalized private property and ownership. 

Same thing with the Communist Republic of China before they went capitalist and brought private enterprise to their economy about ten years ago. Which is just one of the reasons why America and Cuba have restarted diplomatic relations.

If you’re familiar with the Reverend Jim Jones and his People’s Temple from the 1970s and their big field trip to Guyana in the 1970s, you know that is exactly the type of state he tried to create there with his so-called Jonestown. A state where the people would live off the land and live to serve each other and share everything that they gain with each other from off the land. 

Now of course Jones turned into a brutal paranoid dictator and perhaps responsible for the deaths of a thousand innocent people down there. But that is what we wanted Jonestown to be at least in the beginning. 

This communitarian communistic even environment where there would be no profits and selfishness. Again, how is that type of economic system different from what we use to see from Russia, China, Cuba and still today with North Korea?

TIME Magazine: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:TIME Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.
Source:CNN

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte- 'Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs'

Source:Dandelion Salad- Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What did the man who Bernie Sanders today claims as his personal hero really stand for? Elizabeth Schulte tells the story of American socialism’s best-known figure.

IT’S NOT your typical presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist, but Bernie Sanders does. A poster of Eugene V. Debs, the popular Socialist Party leader of the early 20th century, hangs on his office wall as a tribute to Sanders’ self-proclaimed hero.

Like Debs, who ran for president five times, Sanders is also running for president. But that, my friends, is where the similarities end.

The socialism of Bernie Sanders—who says he’s running as a Democrat to shift the debate to the left–is fundamentally different from that of Eugene Debs, who committed his life to spreading the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Sanders is promoting something that falls far, far short of the fundamental change that Debs fought for. Sanders relegates socialism to the realm of nice ideas that can be talked about, but never really be implemented—while he accepts what little the Democratic Party is willing to concede.

For Sanders, the working class is a “constituency,” a backdrop to the political campaigns he runs and the legislative work he does. For Debs, the working class was in the foreground of everything he hope to achieve—because he believed, as a convinced Marxist, that workers have to make the fundamental and lasting transformation that he called socialism." 

From Dandelion Salad

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. And I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car (to use as examples) but those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist: Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America. 

What Senator Sanders wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Prakash RP: A Defence of Communism

Source:Prakash RP-

Source:The New Democrat

Communism, at least in how its been practiced up until the last thirty-years, or so with the Soviet Union collapsing and the People’s Republic of China moving to a form of state capitalism and the same thing with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba, has been a government philosophy built around a big centralized state. That the central state, is the country and owns the country and everyone inside of the country are essentially subjects of the central state. With the central state being responsible for the welfare of the people and taking care of the people. While at the same time preserving the communist state. Even if that means locking people up and killing them if they are seen as threats to the communist regime.

Now if this if the definition of communism, then I believe only a Communist, or Marxist could defend that. But lets say I’m wrong about what communism is and I don’t consider myself to be an expert on communism. And that it really is something a lot more positive than that. And a communist state, is not what we’ve seen North Korea collapse into. Keep in mind, the word communist comes from community. It that a country is a community and that members of that community share with each other for the betterment of society as a whole. So no one has to go with out, or has too much. And that the central government, is in charge of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well in that community. That they have enough money, food, housing, health care, education, etc.

But if my second definition of communism is correct and the first one is wrong, then what makes communism better, or different from socialism? If the difference between a Communist and Socialist, that the Socialist tends to be more democratically oriented? That they believe in multi-party systems and elections? A list of both welfare and individual rights and that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs? That the Communist, believes in the welfare of their people and that everyone should be taken care of. But is so in love with themselves and their political system, that they believe they are entitled to absolute power and don’t deserve to have any opposition whatsoever?

If I’m wrong about the differences between a Socialist and I mean Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat, take U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to use as an example and a Marxist like Fidel Castro, or someone like that and that Communists, do believe in at least a certain level of both personal and economic autonomy, which means freedom at least in America, then why do you need both socialism and communism, if they’re the same thing? And I welcome anyone who actually understands communism to answer them on this piece. My guess is they aren’t the same thing. That their good reasons to be a Socialist, because again Socialists believe in at least a certain level of democracy and freedom. Both personal and economic freedom. As we see with Bernie Sanders and social democracies in Europe.
Source:British Pathe

Movie Zya: Video: The Graduate (1967)

Source:Movie Zya- Dustin Hoffman & Katharine Ross.

Source:The New Democrat

I saw The Graduate for the fourth, or fifth time Sunday morning. Not exactly keeping count. When I was killing time and waiting to meet a friend that I got together very early with on Sunday. My friend and I had this little minor debate going on whether, or not Anne Bancroft, who I think is the star of this movie, whether she is overrated in this movie. This movie, is Ann Bancroft’s defining role. She is known as Mrs. Robinson and for very good reasons. Because she played a beautiful, sexy, very cute, witty, intelligent, seductress who knew exactly what she wanted and what she didn’t want. And how to get what she wanted and stop what she didn’t want.

My friend and I, off an on, the last couple of weeks, have been discussing whether Anne is overrated physically, or not. I agree with my friend, that she’s not the best looking women of the 1960s, or from her generation lets say. But I haven’t heard anyone suggest that she is. But she was a very cute, beautiful, sexy women and a hell of an actress and her role and how she played it, is critical to this movie. It’s the Dustin Hoffman character, not the actor, but Ben Braddock, who I’m not impressed with. He’s just graduated from college with a college degree. And has no idea what the hell he wants to do with his life. He sort of has the personality of a hit man. Someone who speaks in very short if not one word sentences. Who prefers to be by himself, someone what emotionally distant and doesn’t show much if any emotion.

And that is pretty much what makes The Graduate work. A beautiful sexy cute witty intelligent women, in Mrs. Robinson, who is not happy with her marriage and perhaps life in general. Who uses Ben Braddock, who is lost and doesn’t know where he’s going, to fill whatever void that she has with her husband. Which is physical attraction, attention, sex, the feeling that she’s still beautiful and sexy. Which of course she is, but perhaps her husband, played by Murray Hamilton, has lost something perhaps downstairs and up. But the thing is, the people around Ben, his family actually do care about him and want him to be happy and they along with Mr. Robinson, set up Ben with the Robinson’s daughter. Elaine Robinson, played by the beautiful and adorable Katharine Ross.

That is pretty much how this movie goes. Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben to date her daughter. She wants Ben as his sex partner and doesn’t believe Ben is good enough for his daughter. But the date goes on anyway and Ben at first tries to comply with Mrs. Robinson and intentionally makes the date horrible for Elaine and is distant the whole time and takes her to a strip club even. Great way to lose a date if that is your goal, but discovers that he’s been a real asshole, to be blunt about it. And that he’s really hurt Elaine who didn’t deserve it. And tries to make it up to her and they have a really good date after that.

Again, Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben with her daughter. To the point that she tells her about the actual affair that she had with Ben. And even goes to far and tells Elaine, that Ben raped her. Which of course didn’t happen. And Elaine dumps him and goes away for graduate school and Ben spends the rest of the movie trying to win her back. The first forty-five minutes of this movie, are very good and very funny. Mrs. Robinson, tries to seduce Ben two times and swings and misses. Ben, probably feeling way to guilty to take her up on her very generous offer. The third pitch, is thrown by Ben this time and he offers himself to her and invites her to a hotel. This is a great movie about people who aren’t very happy with themselves. And don’t know where they’re going until they get there.

Radical Films: Let it Burn-Robert F. Williams (1968)

Source:Radical Films-

Source: The New Democrat

It’s good to hear a prominent African-American leader support the Right to Self-Defense. Especially with Robert Williams being on the New-Left, or Far-Left in America and a self-described Communist. And I say that, because if there’s one large population in America that has suffered a lot of violence and abuse against them, it’s the African-American community in America. If there’s one community that deserves that right more than anyone else, it would be this community. And I tend to fall on the side of the Martin King social democratic wing of the civil rights movement. But its easy to see why people who have suffered so much against them, would want and need the Right to Self-Defense.

The civil rights movement in America, was multi-racial and multi-political as far as ideology. You had a pacifist social democratic wing in it. Led by Dr. King and his organization. You had a liberal wing that was always talking about self-empowerment and empowering African-Americans to take control of their lives. That also believed in the Right to Self-Defense, led by Malcolm X. And you had a New-Left wing, Communist even, that believed in Black Power and part of that power was using violence against violence and self-protection and defense. Led by the Black Panther Party and many other groups on the New-Left in America.

It sounds like to me that Rob Williams, became more radical as he left America for Cuba in the 1960s. He was President of the NAACP in North Carolina. The NAACP, is a mainstream center-left organization. That is about racial-equality and other issues. It is not a group of Socialists and Communists by in large. And perhaps Williams got tired of all the violence and racism that he was seeing in America and believed he was being persecuted by the U.S. Government. And decided that he needed to change his politics and needed a different approach to take on racism in America and push for racial-equality.
Source:Radical Films

Sam Seder: The Majority Report: Ayn Rand, Secret Socialist

Source:The Majority Report With Sam Seder- Objectivist Philosopher Ayn Rand on The Phil Donahue Show in 1979.

Source:The New Democrat

Is Ayn Rand a hypocrite, because she collected from Social Security and Medicare, two social programs that she was against? Actually no, because she paid into both of them and just collected out what she was entitled to under law. It would be one thing if somehow she became Queen or dictator of the United States and decided to outlaw both programs, except for herself. Now if that were to happen and the Chicago Cubs were to win the World Series, then you could call Ayn a hypocrite. I’m not a fan of pork barrel projects. But that won’t stop me from using a road that was specifically built for my community. That doesn’t benefit anyone else, that other taxpayers have to pay for.

There’s a wing in the Tea Party movement that if they were in charge during the 1930s and 1960s, Social Security, Medicare and a whole host of social insurance programs wouldn’t have been created if they were in charge. But generally speaking, you don’t see them running to outlaw those programs. Specially since they’ve paid a hell of a lot of taxes to finance those programs. Their parents, are already eligible and collecting from those programs. And one day they’ll be eligible to collect some of the taxes that they’ve paid into those programs. Which made the health care reform debate of six years ago funny. When a lot of these so-called Tea Party activists were screaming, “don’t give me socialized medicine! Oh by the way, get your damn hands off my Medicare.”

If Ayn Rand was a Socialist, then Rick Santorum, who is about as Far-Right as anyone can get at least on social issues, is a Libertarian and Mike Huckabee, similar to Rick, is a Liberal. Ayn Rand, is to Libertarians what Karl Marx is to, well Marxists. What Gordon Thomas is to Democratic Socialists, what Barry Goldwater is to Conservatives, what Jack Kennedy and Tom Jefferson are to Liberals. The heroes and gods to all of these political movements. Just because someone collects from something that they are entitled to, doesn’t make them a hypocrite. It just makes them an American.

President Barack Obama: Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

Source:You Hot News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) at The White House.

Source:The New Democrat

President Obama, once again nailed it, when he said that without this deal, which is of course is a deal, Iran would get the nuclear weapons that they want anyway. There are four choices here and only one of them are good. You do nothing else other than current economic sanctions that are crushing the Iranian economy, but not stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons. You try to take the Iranian nuclear weapons program out from the air with air strikes. Even though they have nuclear power plants underground. You invade the country, go to war with them and if you’re successful there, then you try to take the weapons out that way. Or you prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons peacefully. Which is what dealmaking and compromise is about.

Compromises and deals, by definition are imperfect. You get something you want, or need by giving up something you don’t need, or value as much. With this deal, we can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange if Iran complies with the deal, they get economic and sanctions relief that will benefit their economy and their people. Which would make the Iranian Government look better with the Iranian people, but also makes America look better with the Iranian people as well. Who doesn’t like their government, but aren’t fans of the U.S. Government either.

What would the opponents of this deal and President Obama do instead? Invade Iran, a country the size of Saudi Arabia physically, but with seventy-five-million people? Even though they wouldn’t support any resolution that would empower President Obama to take America to war with Iran. Again with the air strikes, Congress wouldn’t support that most likely . And the Iranian Government has nuclear power plants underground. Continue to negotiate for a better deal? What would a better deal be? Iran, is going to have to get something substantial out of any deal, or they aren’t going to sign on to it. President Obama, got the best available deal here that could actually work. And deserves a lot of credit for it.

The New York Times: Nicholas Kristof: Jimmy Carter, His Legacy & a Rabbit

Source:The New York Times- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) 39th President of the United States (1977-81) & his wife First Lady Roselyn Carter.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe, similar to George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman, the Jimmy Carter presidency, looks better in the history books, than it does when it was actually going on. I’m not saying President Carter was a great president. Because of course he wasn’t at least when you consider the issues he had to deal with and how little success he had dealing with them. But he was a president, who was ahead of his time, similar to Richard Nixon, saw things happening in the future. Which is what all very intelligent people can do and knew that those challenges and issues needed to be addressed right away.

Jimmy Carter, is known as a great ex-president, which he certainly is. With his work in dealing with human rights and environmental issues and energy policy. But as he’s said before, a lot of the work that he’s done as an ex-president, he started it as President, but ran out of time and wasn’t able to finish the job. As President, he not only wanted to get America off of foreign oil, but not be reliant on oil at all, or at least not as our sole main energy source. He did get and national energy policy out of Congress, that was reliant on renewable energy, including solar.

During a rough period in the Cold War, when Russia was trying to dominate and control Central Asia, that wasn’t part of the Soviet Union and invaded Afghanistan in 1979, President Carter, was talking about human rights and making human rights officially part of American foreign policy. The first American President to ever do that. Saying that human rights aren’t just an America value, or only something owed to Americans, but something that the whole world deserved. He brought peace between the Jewish State of Israel and the largest Arab country in the world, in Egypt. Almost forty years later, Israel and Egypt are still at peace.

The criticism’s against President Carter, are obvious. The economy, was never in good shape under his watch. He had four years to address it and really didn’t do anything that could help make the economy healthy again. His policy prescription was wrong. Talking about balanced budgets, when he had high interest rates, high energy prices, high unemployment and needed to put people back to work instead. Not knowing the situation on the ground in Iran and knot knowing how unpopular the Shah of Iran was and talking about him like a great man. When in fact he was an authoritarian dictator, who locked people up secretly, simply for opposing his regime. Which I believe is one of the reasons for the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979-80. And essentially ruined his presidency.

And even though President Carter had a Democratic Congress, with large majorities in both the House and Senate, President Carter was a Southern New Democrat. The Bill Clinton of his generation, dealing with a Democratic Congress, that was moving away from the South and becoming heavily dependent on the North, as well as racial and ethnic minorities for support. The Democratic Party, developing a large McGovernite social democratic New-Left wing. That emerges in the late 1960s and grows throughout the 1970s. So I’m not not sure President Carter would’ve been able to deal with the economy effectively even if had the policies to do it.

President Carter, had his weakness’s. One of the best and most intelligent analysts when it comes to analyzing policies and problems. But one of the least effective when it came to addressing problems. And sometimes not being able to address problems at all. Like the economic malaise and the Great Deflation. High interest rates, plus high inflation, that wipes out whatever economic growth you might have. But he’s someone who was President during a time that perhaps the most skillful politician, with the best communication skills and principles, would’ve struggled to deal with effectively.

One of the differences between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, is that President Obama when times are tough, can also show people how things are good and getting better. President Carter, didn’t have that and didn’t have policies that made people feel better. But still, if you look at foreign policy, energy policy and how President Carter helped change the Democratic Party for New Democrats to be able to take over, he looks a lot better now, than he did thirty-five years ago.

Paula Zahn Now: Jane Fonda in 2005

Source:CNN- Hollywood Starlet/New-Left Activist Jane Fonda talking to CNN anchor Paula Zahn in 2005. 

Source:The New Democrat

I think there really are two Jane Fonda’s. The great sexy beautiful baby-faced adorable actress, who is arguably the greatest actress of her generation. With perhaps only Liz Taylor being better. And then there’s the New-Left political activist, that emerges on the American political scene in the late 1960s and is there throughout the 1970s. Who U.S. Military veterans see as The Devil. Who the New-Left/Far-Left in America, see as one of their heroes. Perhaps right of there with Karl Marx and many others. And I think its hard to cover both sides of Jane’s career in one post. But she’s made a huge mark in both careers that she’s had, I’m going to give it a shot.

Its not being against the Vietnam War, that made Jane Fonda controversial. I mean, the country up until the early 1970s, was split on that issue. Its still the worst war that America has ever been in. As far as all of the pain, suffering and deaths and how its effected future president’s and Congress’s and how they go to war. Its how Jane was against this war that really sets her apart. And puts in the anti-war movement in America that makes it easy to portray her as anti-American, if not Un-American. When you accuse the President of the United States of being a war criminal and you take a picture with the enemy and you call Americans soldiers murderers, its easy to see how people who love America would hate you.

The positive side of Jane Fonda’s career. Again, perhaps the best actress of her generation, The Silent Generation, Americans born in the late 1920s and 1930s, primarily. I think only Liz Taylor would be better than Jane. And you look at Jane’s movies like Walk on The Wild Side, The Chase, The China Syndrome, some of the best movies ever and she had a great part and was great in all of them, its easy to see why she’s had such a great career. And inheriting Henry Fonda’s genes, doesn’t hurt either. But as a political activist and I’ll go concentrate on the Vietnam War, perhaps some of her other activities, I probably agree with her on, she stands out as a real New-Left, or Far-Left radical, that has pissed off a lot of Americans. Who by in-large would probably like and love her a lot otherwise.

David Frum: 'Liberal & The Illiberal Left'

Source:The Atlantic- the left-wing The Atlantic with an article about the illiberal left in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"A liberal,” Robert Frost once said, “is someone who can’t take his own side in an argument.” If conservatives are often caricatured by their detractors as unfeeling, liberals are painted as uncertain, weak, and easily bullied. Back in the 1980s, the centrist British politician David Owen joined the two accusations in a jibe against Britain’s Prime Minister Thatcher and her then Labor opponent: “She doesn’t care, and he doesn’t dare.”

These stereotypes exert real-world political effects. In the 1970s, a Yale sociologist went to live for two years among an exotic tribe: not in the South Seas or up the Amazon, but in the working-class neighborhood of Canarsie, next door to New York’s Kennedy Airport. For a political generation, the Jews and Italians of Canarsie had voted overwhelmingly for New Deal Democrats. Since 1970, their preference had shifted to Richard Nixon’s Republicans. The sociologist, Jonathan Rieder, wanted to understand why. Here’s what he found... 

From The Atlantic

Conservative David Frum and Progressive Jonathan Chait, both wrote good and interesting pieces about the illiberal New-Left in America this winter. And how hard they’ve come down against free speech and push so hard for their version of fascism, which is political correctness. I’ve called people who are so Far-Left and even see people like Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and others as heroes, or at least as people who are worth supporting, as the New-Left in America. And have more in common with Communists, than they would with a Liberal Democrat like Jack Kennedy. Who was always against communism and authoritarianism in general. And always a strong supporter of free speech, especially for people who he disagreed with.

This is very simple. If you don’t believe in free speech, even for people you disagree with and perhaps even find offensive, you’re not a Liberal. Perhaps you’re on the Far-Left, or Far-Right, but someone who doesn’t believe in free speech, is not a Liberal, but a fascist. The Illiberal-Left in America, are not Liberals, because they don’t defend liberal values. With Freedom of Speech being the number one value. You can’t have a liberal democracy without Freedom of Speech and Assembly. The Right to Privacy and Property Rights, would be two other keys in a liberal democracy. That today’s Illiberal-Left, doesn’t seem to either appreciate, or is even against. With their so-called political correctness movement to protect people from criticism that they believe deserves special protection from society. And this idea that people shouldn’t own things. But that we as a society should share everything.

Bill Maher, who has real socialist leanings, at least on economic policy and was seen as a hero by the Far-Left in America, before last fall when he started criticizing Islam, but who is a true Liberal when it comes to personal freedom and social issues, is a perfect example of how the Illiberal-Left tries to destroy people simply when they disagree with them. That in their little world, it is not enough to disagree with people you disagree with, because others may agree with them. So what you do is trying to destroy them and get their voice censored, so they can’t be heard. And only your side can get their message out. Which is pure fascism and something that Karl Marx would applaud, that Jack Kennedy would’ve been disgusted with.

Charlie Rose Show: Bill Maher

Source:Charlie Rose Show-

Source:The New Democrat

I disagree with Bill Maher on a couple of things here. The thing about Islam, I’m not a Muslim and that has to do with the fact that I’m not a fan of Islam. Its way too conservative for me as a religion, especially as it relates to women’s issues and social issues in general. But if Islam and Muslims were as prone to violence, America would be a lot more dangerous place. We have what, five-million Muslims in America and not all of them live in Detroit and the state of Michigan. If Muslims were as violent as Maher seems to think, America would be a hell of a lot more violent than it is right now. Without Muslims committing so many violent acts in America.

I agree with Maher on one thing about Liberals and disagree with him on another. He said that he gets booed by Liberals in his audience. Well unless he’s saying something to the effect that public education should be outlawed, homosexuality should be outlawed and it should be illegal for women to work and vote, which is what Ann Coulter seems to believe, it’s not Liberals that are booing him. Maher gets booed by his so-called supporters when he says something that is not politically correct with his illiberal politically correct audience. Who believe that language that offends them and people they care about, should be censored. Free speech, liberal. Political correctness, illiberal fascism.

And where I agree with Maher as it relates to Liberals. The polling about who is Liberal and who is Conservative and who is Socialist and who is Libertarian, is simply wrong. If you look at all the cultural war issues right now, especially social issues, America is a very liberal country. We believe in free speech, right to privacy, personal freedom in general. And also believe in public education, infrastructure investment, comprehensive immigration reform, a safety net for people who need it. We are also a lot more Socialist than we get credit for, because a lot of people who call themselves Liberals, are actually Socialists. Like a lot of Bill Maher’s audience.

Thom Hartmann: Caller- 'We Need to Repeal The 2nd Amendment!'

Source:Thom Hartmann Program-

Source:The New Democrat

Thom Hartmann and even the caller to a certain extent, even though he called for repealing the 2nd Amendment, actually sounded reasonable here. Look, I’m for what I and probably most Democrats call sensible gun control, or commonsense gun control. And what is that? We know who buys and has guns in America. If you’re not a criminal and not mentally handicapped in anyway and are lets say 18 or over, you could own as many guns as you want from gifts and purchases. But if you had history of violence, especially towards innocent people, whether it's criminal violence, or you’re mentally handicapped and you don’t know what you’re doing, you don’t have that right. Thats all I’m talking about.

And you did a national independent non-partisan poll, lets say from Gallup, or some place like that, you would get probably 3-5 of the vote in favor of a system like that. Before you buy a gun, or receive one as a gift, you go through a 24 hour background check. You pass that and you get, or keep your gun. You don’t pass that and you don’t. We don’t need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to accomplish that. We need a solid majority in Congress, both House and Senate that believes in commonsense and doing things like this. That also believe mental health care is as important as physical health care. That we fully fund mental health care in America. And we could do that simply through the insurance system. And stop releasing mentally handicapped people, because we can’t afford to take care of them.

And we also don’t need big government coming in and saying that firearms are only for, well big government and criminals. Other developed democratic free countries, may not have the Right to Self-Defense. But those countries also allow for their citizens to own firearms. But they also have commonsense gun control policies, to keep guns away from violent criminals. And allow for their responsible law-biding people to own and use firearms. Just as long as they aren’t shooting innocent people. We could do that in America, while keeping our 2nd Amendment in place and electing a responsible commonsense Congress and replacing just one of the Supreme Court Justices, that see the 2nd Amendment as absolute. While they compromise on the rest of our constitutional rights.
Source:Thom Hartmann

Oxford Union: Bill Maher Full Q&A

Source:Oxford Union- Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The New Democrat

Bill Maher, I would describe politically as a Socialist-Liberal. Liberal, on personal and social issues, especially freedom of speech. Where he puts basically no limits on it. And neither do I really, other than libel, harassment and inciting violence. But, he’s pretty Far-Left on economic policy and consistently endorses big government socialism and higher taxes on everyone, to pay for new government social spending. And says that government should take over this and that and education is one of his examples. And he’s in favor of a maximum income and other big government socialist policies. And that America, should be like Europe, perhaps across the board.

But when it comes to especially free speech issues and the right to offend, especially when he’s right, I’ve backed him on every single so-called controversy that he’s brought to himself in the last year. As Maher says, he’s the real Liberal when it comes to talking about religion and talking about what he doesn’t like about it. But what separates Maher from lets say Ben Affleck, or Salon, or the AlterNet, or some other Far-Left publication, is that Maher when he criticizes religion, just doesn’t pick on Christianity. The Far-Left, picks on Christianity, because they see it as a redneck religion, that only Southern rural Caucasians follow.

The Far-Left, won’t at least openly criticize any non-Caucasian, especially women and any non-Western religion, because they see that as bigotry, or at least that’s what they say. And what separates a Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, from Ben Affleck and his followers, is that Maher and Harris criticize religion and people that they disagree with and have serious issues with. Regardless of their religion and ethnicity, or race. But again to the Far-Left, the fake liberals on the Left, any criticism of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Caucasians, people of non-Western descent, is considered bigotry to them. Where Bill Maher as a social Liberal let's say, believes in Free Speech. And that means the right to speak freely, even if you offend people. Especially when you’re right.

TIME Magazine: Senator Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of The Marriage Business Altogether

Source: TIME Magazine- U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R, Ken.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Senator Paul on this, as far as government getting out of marriage, at least as far as deciding who and who can’t get married in the United States. If this were always the case, or at least in the last 10-15 years, we wouldn’t see all of those homophobic same-sex marriage bans all across the country. And we wouldn’t need states passing laws and ballot measures legalizing same-sex marriage in their state, because it would already be legal in their state.

When government puts people in different classes and says class a, should be treated better than class b, even though class a has no special considerations under the law that makes them more worthy than class b, or any other class, they’re violating the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. Why, because they would be giving one class of Americans special rights and treatment over another. And just because they prefer that class of people over another one. Gays, have the right to get married to their willing partners in America, just as much as straights do, just because they’re American and of age. Which is all that they need.

So that’s where I disagree with Senator Paul here. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t redefine anything here. Pre-2003 or so, there wasn’t any official government position of marriage. And sure, the Religious-Right can up until the last ten years or so say marriage was always between a man and a women. But that wasn’t government law. Just how the society conducted itself. 20-30, years ago, gays were still in the closet. They were just trying to survive in a world where they were outsiders. And they were worried about if they were going to get fired if their sexuality was discovered, or would they lose their home. Would they lose their straight friends, would their family disown them. Not if they could marry their girlfriend or boyfriend.

And Senator Paul, can make the Chief Justice John Roberts argument that this Supreme Court decision hurts American democracy and our democratic principles all they want to. But it’s not the Left that is constantly reminding Americans that we live in a republic, not a democracy. The Right does that and this is an example where our system and form of government can hurt their political goals. We live in a Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have basic fundamental human and individual, as well as constitutional rights, simply as Americans, that we can’t lose at the ballot box. Gays, aren’t getting special treatment under the law with this Supreme Court decision. Just their basic fundamental human, individual and constitutional rights as American citizens.
Source:CNN