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