Free Speech TV: Rocky Anderson On The National Security State

Source:Free Speech TV- Justice Party nominee for President, Rocky Anderson.

"Rocky Anderson on Role of Government" 

From Free Speech TV

Free Speech TV called their video: "Rocky Anderson on Role of Government" but what Rocky (no, not that Rocky) was really doing here was talking about the national security state, as it relates to the so-called War On Terror and calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act. 

The U.S. Government shouldn't be able to arrest or hold people, simply because of what they read or who they associate with, unless they're convicted criminals. But this country is a lot safer now than it was 10 years ago, because of the Patriot Act. The Feds are now required under law to work with each other and share information with each other., as it relates to domestic security, as well as domestic and foreign terrorism.

CBS News: Longines Chronoscope: Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (1954)

Source:CBS News interviewing U.S. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota)

"LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH HUBERT H. HUMPHREY  - National Archives and Records Administration   - ARC Identifier 96003 / Local Identifier LW-LW-455 - Brought to you by Longines, World's Most Honored Watch.  Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon." 

From Public Resource

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Henry A. Wallace (1952)

Source:Public Resource- Progressive Party candidate Henry A. Wallace, on the Longines Chronoscope, in 1952. 

""LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH HENRY A. WALLACE - National Archives and Records Administration 1951-12-28 - ARC Identifier 95964 / Local Identifier LW-LW-409 - TELEVISION INTERVIEW: Col. Ansel E. Talbert and William Bradford Huie talk with Wallace, former Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Agriculture, on critical areas of concern in the world, displaced Arabs in Middle East, economic "peace" assistance, aid federal spending. DVD copied by IASL Master Scanner Katie Filbert."

From Public Resource

Henry Wallace, ran for President in 1948, when the United States essentially had four major presidential contenders: Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican Governor Tom Dewey, Dixiecrat Governor Strom Thurmond and Progressive Henry Wallace. And apparently President Truman a Democrat, even though he advocated what was called the Fair Deal, which was to build on the New Deal from the 1930s, wasn’t left-wing enough for Henry Wallace. So Wallace, ran for the Progressive Party. Henry Wallace was a Social Democrat t, or Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat and I mean small d when it comes to Democrat. Someone who believed in democracy obviously, but a certain type of democracy.

Henry Wallace, believed in democratic socialism or social democracy. Thats common in Europe and wanted to expand on the New Deal and go even further in guaranteeing health insurance and health care. To use as examples, college as well and using the Federal Government heavily, to produce an economy that was as strong and as fair as possible. Investing heavily in public infrastructure, Federal aid to Education, that sort of thing. And combined his economic socialism with social liberalism. Big believer in civil rights and equal rights for all. Way ahead of the Democratic Party in the 1940s and deserves a lot of credit for that.

I think what really separates Henry Wallace from mainstream Progressive Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey, has to do with foreign policy and national security. That would be the negative side, where I don’t believe Wallace took the threat of the Soviet Union and communism around the world seriously enough and perhaps even sided with them on some things.

Wallace's positive aspect and I believe the best part of Wallace’s political legacy and what he had in common with Hubert Humphrey and where he separated from Roosevelt and Truman, had to do with civil rights and equal rights. Wallace and Humphrey, supported what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was finally passed by Congress and singed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And Henry Wallace, deserves a lot of credit for that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Al Jazeera: 'Venezuela Vote Result Could Impact Latin America'

Source:Al Jazeera- interviewing Pablo Pastro for this piece.

"Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is campaigning ahead of next Sunday's presidential election, where he hopes to be voted in for another term in office.  The vote will be crucial for the future of the oil-rich nation.   But the result could also affect many people far beyond Venezuela's borders, as the budgets of several Latin American countries factor in aid from Chavez's government.  Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman reports from Caracas." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], "The Island")[3] is a state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news network of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[7] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being "Qatari propaganda." 

From Wikipedia

I'm obviously no fan of Socialist President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. But it seems from this Al Jazeera piece (which is no right-wing news organization) that the Chavez Administration (if you want to call it that) has been giving way their oil and gas for free, to other Latin American countries with socialist government's, like Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because their ideological allies. That's Venezuelan money that was created in Venezuela, bye Venezuelans, that should be going into the Venezuelan economy, for the Venezuelan people, that instead is going to Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because those countries have socialist government's.

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:WNYC- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern.Bernie Sanders of his generation.

Source:The Daily Journal

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From Daily Kos

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Joseph Hewes- Conservative Barry Goldwater vs. Socialist Norman Thomas 

From  Joseph Hewes

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

The Newsroom: Will McAvoy: 'RINOS Are The Real Republicans'

Source:Sree Kumar- the cast of HBO's The Newsroom.

Source:The Daily Journal

"This post may seem wildly dated, in that it takes up an American sitcom that first ran from 2012 to 2014 — but stick with me for a moment, and maybe it’ll seem topical again.

I first watched the The Newsroom in India, in re-runs a year or two after it first broadcast, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Notwithstanding criticisms from many reviewers, including some I usually agree with, about ineptitude, intellectual snobbery and worse, to me it seemed one of the smarter, more articulate of American comedy shows, with an interesting focus on what one might call “larger” issues.

Even before I watched the TV show I had, like pretty much everyone else who uses WhatsApp in India, seen an excerpt which went viral, at least in my country. It was labelled, “The Most Honest 2 Minutes on American TV”, or something on those lines. Just icymi, in that clip (viewable here), drawn from from Episode 1, Season 1, an American university student innocently asks a panel including key protagonist Will McAvoy the leading question, What makes America the greatest country in the world."

From Kay Sree Kumar 

This is from HBO's The Newsroom episode when anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are the real Republicans. And the fake Republicans are actually populist Tea Party and the rest of the Populist-Right in America. 

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as anchor of The Newsroom Will McAvoy.

Another look at the episode from HBO’s The Newsroom where their anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are actually the real Republicans. And the populists are the fake Republicans.

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as the anchor of The Newsroom.

I'll be honest, I'm not a regular viewer of HBO's Newsroom, but I've seen a few scenes of it. And what I've gotten out of it, is the anchor of this Newscast, is an admitted Republican. A Conservative Republican even, but a Republican in how the Republican Party use to be. 

Will McAvoy Republicans tend to be well-educated, intelligent, believe and reason and facts, are religious even, but believe in factually based evidence and facts and don't let their religious beliefs runs their lives for them, especially when their religion goes against facts and evidence.  

The people that I'm guessing Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) believes are the real RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are people who are so hard-core with their religious and culturally based, nationalistic even political philosophy, that they are the people who are the real RINOS, because they don't believe in facts and evidence, just their political fundamentalism. And screw off facts and evidence, when they go against their partisan politics. 

Salon: Steve Kornacki: 'Sorry, It’s Not Mitt Romney’s Fault'

Source:Salon Magazine.

"The election is just over a month away, and only now is a leading conservative publication stepping forward to tell Mitt Romney that the premise on which he’s built his entire presidential campaign is wrong.

The Romney campaign’s assumption has been that economic anxiety will have swing voters in a firing mood in November, and that their desire to punish Barack Obama will push them into the GOP nominee’s column. But as a National Review editorial that went up last night points out:

What Romney has not done is address the major problem he has in making the case: the shadow of the George W. Bush years. Americans are more likely to blame Bush for the financial crisis that started on his watch than to blame Obama for the slow recovery from it. And even before the financial crisis, the last period of Republican governance was not especially good for America’s middle class.

It’s a valid assessment. Plenty of evidence is now available that Obama is benefiting politically from the public’s memory of the 2008 meltdown that played out on Bush’s watch, with voters willing to weigh current economic conditions against the catastrophe that was in full swing as Obama took office."

Source:Salon Magazine

Wow, the second time in the last two weeks I'm sort of standing up for Mitt Romney. But its true, Mitt is 20-30 years past his time as far as the Republican Party as it stands today, is not the Republican Party that Mitt grew up with and was a member of as a young man and as an early middle age man and someone who was finally elected to public office in his mid fifties in 2002. 

What's called the Republican Party today, (that in many cases doesn't even believe in American Republicanism) is now a Far-Right party, that sees Americans of today as Un American, if they don't look at the world the way they do and people who don't belong. 

In America, the so-called Republican Party, is no longer a big tent party, that can win all across the country. It instead is essentially made up of people, who are aren't accustomed to being with people who aren't from their community and see these people as Un American. And Mitt finds himself having to try to appease to these people, while looking sane and tolerant to the rest of the country and it's just something that can't be done. Because the fringe he needs to vote for him, are completely different from the rest of the country and its sort of an either-or proposition. You can't please both.