The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, talking about President Barack H. Obama.

"Radio show host Thom Hartmann on the critique of Obama. More at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

As Thom Hartmann says in this interview, Barack Obama is not what the left-wing (to be kind) in America calls a Movement Progressive. Which is someone that not only believe in progress and that government can play a constructive role in American life and even in the economy, but someone who wants to radically change the face of American government and even change our form of government. 

What American leftists call Movement Progressives, the rest of the developed world calls Social Democrats or even Socialists. But because of the negative stereotypes that come from Socialist and socialism in America, because of the Cold War, as well as Communists and communism, American leftists live by Progressive or Liberal, because they're generally terrified of being known as Socialists in America. 

Barack Obama wasn't a so-called Movement Progressive when he ran for President in 2007-08, or when he was in the Senate. Mr. Obama comes from the Bill Clinton-Robert F. Kennedy faction of the party, people who are the real Progressive Democrats of the party. Which is different from the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, that Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders essentially leads today. That Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader (if he was still a Democrat) the so-called Progressive Caucus and others in the party, that want to make America like Europe.

Move On: Robert Reich- 'Puts An Offer on The Table For President Obama'

Source:Move On- left-wing political economist Robert Reich, on President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In less than three minutes, our favorite economist spells out what it's going to take to get our support."

From Move On

What so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) need to understand is what President Obama is doing, this whole campaign about class warfare, is exactly that. The class warfare campaign to get the Far-Left in the Democratic Party behind him for 2012. The exact same play or very close to it that he ran in 2007-08 to get this base behind him to win the Democratic nomination for President that he played masterfully. But then in the general election he became a Center-Left Progressive Democrat. Because he knew he needed the Democratic Party behind him, but he also needed Independent voters behind him as well.

Thats how Senator Barack Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, as well and Colorado. States that the Republican nominee has to win in order to get elected President. The President is not running this campaign because he believes in the so-called progressive agenda. If thats what so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, really) want, then they should vote for the so-called Progressive Party nominee or the Socialist Party nominee. Neither Nominee of course would win but at least they would be ideologically in sync. President Obama believes in the Democratic agenda which is why he's a Progressive Democrat.

Center-Left Democrats have similar goals of Democratic Socialists, but different policy's to accomplish those goals. You're not going to see the President offer a single payer Medicare For All plan, or a plan to nationalize big banks. Or a plan to let all of the tax cuts expire including for the middle class. Or I'm sure a lot of other things that so-called Progressive Economist Bob Reich wants to do.

So before Democratic Socialists throw all of their support behind President Obama and unless they want a President Gingrich or Romney, they have to get behind the President and Democratic Party. And then perhaps try to recruit more of their members in the Democratic Party. Or recruit their own members to the so-called Progressive Party for 2014-16, they have to get behind the President. And not cost Democrats another election in Congress or cost them the White House. Because they didn't bother to vote or voted for people who lost overwhelmingly.

President Obama wants to pass his own agenda to restore American capitalism and make it work for the whole country. The other 90-99%, not tear down American capitalism and move to democratic socialism thats common in Europe. And he knows he needs the entire Democratic Party behind him to accomplish this. He knows he needs to get reelected obviously and that Senate Democrats need to hold on. And he needs more House Democrats if not a Democratic majority with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. But he can't accomplish this with just Progressives, Liberals and Centrists. He already has those people. He needs Democratic Socialists as well and thats what this latest campaign is all about.

So for Democratic Socialists to get behind the President for 2012, as a Progressive Democrat, I believe thats great. Because that means President Obama's approval rating will go up and get near 50%. If he gets there and holds it, he's basically a lock to get reelected. But Socialists should know why he's doing this campaign, to get reelected because it's about politics. 

Wendy McElroy: 'A Feminist Defense of Pornography'

Source:Free Inquiry- from an article that Canadian author Wendy McElroy wrote about pornography.

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A

Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most

feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex

workers." 

From Wendy McElroy

I take issues like pornography, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prostitution, gambling, video games, music, movies, abortion (go down the line) as personal choice issues in how I decide whether they should be legal or not. And if they are legal or illegal and under what conditions. 

When it comes to personal choice issue where there aren't multiple victims involved, I ask this basic simple question: would society be better off if we were freer or less freer and how we decide these issues? Or should government step in and decide for the people themselves whether they can do these things or not? That would be the less freer approach. And once they are given that power, they'll probably say no. Or should we allow free people to make these decisions for themselves? That would be the free approach and if we go in that direction. 

Wendy McElroy takes it a step further and says that pornography should not only be legal, but endorses it and perhaps recommends that women (at least) should not only be viewing pornography, but perhaps personally involved in it. I don't take that approach, but instead say that free adults should make these decisions for themselves and then be personally accountable for their own personal choices. 

People who are called radical feminists or militant feminists, if there's one thing that they have in common with the Christian-Right is the belief in big government even as it relates to personal freedom and say that pornography is not only bad, but it should be illegal, because they believe that it degrades women. And in a free society like America, we all get to make these decisions for ourselves and believe what we believe. 

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger'

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

"Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger" 

From Anon Saint 

Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann talking about Occupy Wall Street. Keep in ,mind: Mr. Moore is s multi-millionaire who is very successful in America because he got himself a good education and has real talent as a filmmaker and then applied his skills and talents in the private market, capitalist system in America and then became very successful. And yet now he’s bashing the very economic system in America that allowed for him to be so successful. 

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I’m not sure Mr. Moore has much credibility on this issue, bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog) 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Ed Schultz on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Ed Schulz, speaking to Paul Jay about President Barack Obama, in 2009.

"Schultz: If the President waivers on public health care and jobs, he could be a 'one term wonder'

From The Real News 

Ed Schultz sounding very practical and pragmatic about his analysis about President Barack Obama (the pragmatic Progressive: if you will) and arguing that President Obama inherited a huge mess in 2009 and he's doing the best with the hand that was dealt to him and that he's made real progress so far. Talking about the Recover Act and SCHIP. (State Children's Health Insurance Program) Which is what you generally don't get from left-wing political commentators in America, especially about President Barack Obama. 

What you got from Paul Jay in this interview was the usual Far-Left talking points that President Obama is simply not doing enough, that he's not progressive enough (which is code for not socialist enough) and arguing that Democrats have The White House and Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate and that Democrats should be doing a lot more. That they're not left-wing enough. 

Generally when you get a discussion like this between two leftists when they're talking about mainstream Democrats, is they are both talking like Democrats are selling them out or screwing them over and they're really just moderate Republicans. (To paraphrase Noam Chomsky) What you get here is one of the leftists (Paul Jay) essentially arguing that the Democrats aren't left enough, with Ed Schultz showing some real patience and practicality. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann On Leftist Democrats (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, on the left-wing in America, in and outside of the Democratic Party.

"Radio show host Thom Hartman on progressives and the Democratic Party." 

From The Real News 

To put it simply and to risk sounding insulting to leftists (Socialists and Communists) but to pick up on what Thom Hartmann was talking about the difference between leftist-Democrats and rightist-Democrats: is that Republicans regardless of political ideology believe in wealth, individual success, and money. When the right-wing (or Far-Right) of the Republican Party wants something, they organize, they raise a hell of a lot money, because they know how to get it and where to get and then recruit candidates and people who are already in office to deliver on whatever their platform at the time says and wants.  

Leftists tend to be hipsters and hippies from the 1960s who are so antiestablishment, that they believe getting involved with the establishment (meaning government and politics) only feeds the beast and the man (as they would put it) and they believe they have better things to do. 

And again we're talking about Socialists by enlarge, who don't know where to go to get the money that it would take to put together a political movement or organization, that's even big enough to take on the mainstream establishment in the Democratic Party, or form a leftist party that could at some point compete with the Democratic Party. 

Plus, again we're talking about leftists (meaning Socialists) and they just don't access to the big donors that they would need to back their movement to take over an organization as large as the Democratic Party in America, because wealthy people, especially Democrats don't believe in what the Far-Left wants to do and is trying to accomplish. 

Rich Democrats love their freedom, wealth, and lifestyles, and don't want big government taking that away from them. Especially the so-called Hollywood Leftists who talk like Socialists, but live like liberal-democratic, capitalists. 

Prepare To Survive: 'Having More Than 7 Days Of Food Makes You A Suspected Terrorist'

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

"It's all in the numerous FBI fliers called ' communities against terrorism '. 

S 1867, hr 1540, indefinite detention, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, judge napolitano, freedom watch, john mccain, carl levin, lindsey graham, rand paul,  military, arbitrary arrest, us citizen, battlefield, prepper, food storage, weatherproof ammo, suspected terrorist, National Defense Authorization Act."

Source:Prepare To Survive- FBN talk show host Andrew Napolitano.

From Prepare To Survive  

"Obama Signs NDAA into Law - Happy New Year?"  

Prepare To Survive

"In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law - including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge... 

Source:ABC News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From ABC News  

At some point the Far-Left (in and outside the Republican Party) is going to have to decide for themselves how they view President Barack Obama. He's been accused by them of being a Socialist and yet he keeps signing all of these laws that like indefinite detention that empower our national security state and Federal law enforcement. And hasn't done a damn thing to expand the safety net or create a welfare state, nationalize and of the American industries. 

If Barack Obama is a illegal immigrant from Kenya (as the Far-Right claims) who is also a Muslim-Socialist-Atheist-Communist (all charges that the Far-Right) have made about Barack Obama, he's got a hell of a weird way of showing that: like his Hawaii birth certificate, or his middle class tax cuts (not tax increases) or his policies and laws that have made the national security state in America even stronger. 

I disagree with indefinite detention and a lot of what's in the so-called Patriot Act, but if President Obama was the radical Far--Leftist or illegal immigrant that the Far-Right claims about him, he wouldn't have signed or renewed any of those laws.