See Black Power: Minister Malcolm X- 'We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock'

Source:Donnie Mossberg- Minister Malcolm X, speaking in 1964.

"MALCOLM X We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock March 29, 1964"

From See Black Power 

Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X arguing that African-Americans were Africans who happened to be in America, but not necessarily American. Constitutionally he was wrong about that since according to the U.S. Constitution anyone who is born in the United States or born to an American parent (father or mother) is an American citizen by birthright, regardless of race or ethnicity. But I believe his point is that African-Americans weren’t getting their constitutional and individual rights enforced equally as European-Americans or weren’t getting their rights enforced equally at all. Which is the same point that Dr. Martin L. King also argued.

Source:FRS FreeState- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, I believe speaking in 1964.

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else.

Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty.

But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival.

Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job.

But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Nancy Pelosi: 'Celebrating the 46th Anniversary of Medicare'

Source:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi- House Democrats, holding a press conference celebrating the 46th anniversary of Medicare.

"Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats held a press conference ahead of the 46th anniversary of Medicare becoming law." 

From Nancy Pelosi

The 46th Anniversary of Medicare and it should be celebrated because of the health insurance it's guaranteed for tens of millions of senior citizens since. And it's been a great success and has achieved the original purpose of its objective, which is not something that can be said as fact for a lot of other Federal programs. Perhaps not even a lot of other Federal programs. 

And I believe a big reason for its success, that it guarantees health insurance for everyone thats eligible for it. Meaning all senior citizens has a Patients Bill of Rights built into it. Which was also part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, meaning that Medicare can't dump its patients because they get sick and need health insurance or reach a lifetime cap on the amount of health insurance they consume in dollars. Or have a preexisting medical condition. (To use as examples) 

Another reason why Medicare has succeeded is unlike Medicaid, Medicare has a dedicated revenue source. Medicare is funded through part of the payroll tax, unlike Medicaid which has to come out of general revenue in the Federal Government as well as state government's. And the Federal Government actually has to pay more for Medicaid then it does but has never lived up to its own obligations that itself wrote into law when they created Medicaid back in 1965. 

Medicaid is something like a 40B$ program the entire U.S. Department of Education budget and is very expensive to run. Unlike the Federal Government that run Medicare on its own through the Health and Human Services Department. And again has a dedicated revenue source to fund the program and doesn't have to look to cut the Federal budget just to fund Medicare. 

But with Baby Boom Generation retiring which is a huge generation and the cost of their medical care coming down the road followed by Generation X (my generation) and others, it's time that we look to reform Medicare in a way that saves the program and makes it work even better. 

What I would like to see done with Medicare instead of turning it into a voucher system coming from the Tea Party and no longer guaranteeing health insurance for senior citizens and forcing senior citizens with a voucher to go get their own health insurance from the private sector, where private insurers wouldn't have to cover them and taking away part of their freedom of choice in health insurance, we should let seniors and every other American decide for themself where they get their health insurance, or let them have health savings accounts, if that is what they want.

Or instead of doing what the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus and its allies want to do and convert Medicare into a single-payer health insurance program for everyone and taking away the freedom of choice for everyone to be able to decide where they get their health insurance. 

What I would like to do is give senior citizens the freedom of choice to decide for themselves where they get their own health insurance. They can stay on Medicare or with a voucher could decide to go into the private sector or even public sector as well. 

If we ever create a public option in health care reform that I would like to see. As well as reform the financing of Medicare, have the wealthy pay more into it before they are eligible to collect it and once they are on it. And raise the retirement age for people who are able to work longer and can afford to wait before they receive Medicare. We could fix the financing of medicare with the last two reforms alone. 

What could really save Medicare indefinitely where we may never have to worry about its financing again or at least not the Federal Government. Would be to get it off of the budget of the Federal Government all together, not eliminate it or turn it over to the states. But converting it into an independent non-profit health insurance service thats no longer run by the Federal Government. That would compete in the private market with other non-profit health insurers and hopefully a new public option would be part of its competition. 

Medicare could be well-regulated, meaning it would have to accept any senior citizen eligible for it. But maybe it would also accept people from all age groups as well (the public option) which would help cut its costs because it would be able to cover healthier people as well. 

And under my plan there would no longer be just one Medicare, each State would have it own Medicare system, but none of the states would run it. But there would be a Medicare service in each state: Medicare Maryland, Medicare Ohio, Medicare Florida, etc, every State. But each Medicare service would have to comply with a basic set of standards from the Federal Government. 

Under my plan Medicare would have its own Management and Board of Directors at the National and State Levels that they would select. Medicare has been a very successful Medical Insurance Program the last forty six years and we need to keep it as a very successful Health Insurer going forward. But for that to happen, we need to put some solid reforms on it and not do anything to it that could make it weaker. By eliminating the Freedom of Choice for its current patients and perhaps future patients.

Such is Life Videos: Thomas Roberts- 'Supporters Of Marriage Equality Wavering On Bill In Maryland'

Source:Such is Life Videos- Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, talking to MSNBC's Thomas Roberts.

 "Thomas Roberts talks with Jonathan Capehart (The Washington Post) about Sam Arora's disgraceful wavering on marriage equality in Maryland. Final vote on same-sex marriage bill this week." 

From Such is Life Videos

I'm a native Marylander and have lived in the State of Maryland my whole life and love my State. It's a great State and has been probably its entire existence, with a high quality of life, education, economy employment, infrastructure, recreation, physical beauty. 6M people roughly within a few hours drive, so you are never that far away from anything. Great food, the best crab cakes around and other great seafood, great places to eat. Short winters, long hot humid summers with a lot of sun and of you are from New England or the Northwest, Maryland and the broader Mid Atlantic is probably not the best climate for you. 

We are a high taxed state though compared with the rest of the country, but we get a pretty good bang for our buck with great schools roads, parks and so-forth. So myself who who believes in low taxes, I'll accept that for now. Maryland in nicknamed the Free State, which is also what I call my blog. 

One reason because I'm a Marylander, the other because it fits my politics like a glove: I believe in the idea of Free State the ability for people to live freely in a free society. The ability for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. I've been described as a Libertarian or a Classical Liberal. But I prefer liberal or even Liberal Democrat, because one I know what those terms mean unlike a lot of others. 

But also because I believe in Individual Liberty but thats not my point of this blog. My point is if you are actually going to have the nerve to call your state in a liberal democracy of 310M people with forty nine other states, the Free State, then you have an obligation as I see it, to live up to that nickname as much as possible and give your citizens and residents as much freedom as possible. 

The voter registration in Maryland is something like 70% Democrat and have had one Republican governor in that last forty four years. But even with all of that, gay marriage is still illegal, gambling until recently was illegal, we now have slots at our race tracks, that I voted for on a ballot as well as casinos. Marijuana of course is still illegal like in the rest of the country, but that could change in California and they came close to decriminalizing marijuana in 2010. Prostitution is still illegal like in forty eight other states, only Nevada has legal prostitution but they regulate and tax it. 

All of these personal activities are all illegal in the Free State of Maryland. All these activities that go on anyway in Maryland but in the dark. All of these activities that have consequences including negative but we can say that about a lot of other activities that are currently legal: alcohol and tobacco come to mind, but we regulate and tax them. 

If you are going to call yourself the Free State and forty nine other states could've picked that nickname and you live in a free society, you should live up to that nickname as much as possible because it's a lot to live up to. Instead of trying to prohibit how people live their lives, even though you know those activities are going to go on anyway. 

Maryland should regulate how these personal activities happen and have some control over it to make it as safe as possible. And regulate how people interact with each other and put in some rules to prevent and punish people when they abuse each other. And then you can bring down your overall tax rates, because now you've broaden your tax base. 

I'm glad Governor Martin O'Malley has finally come on board in supporting gay marriage in the Free State of Maryland. But Maryland should be freer in other ways as well and be as free as possible and live up to its great nickname.

Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid- 'Speaker Boehner's Plan is Not a Compromise'

 

Source:Senate Democrats- Senate Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about House Speaker John Boehner's (Republican, Ohio) debt reduction plan.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells reporters, House Speaker John Boehner's plan to raise the debt ceiling "was written for the Tea Party, not the American people." 

From the Senate Democrats

Neither the debt plan offered by House Speaker John Boehner or Senate Leader Reid will pas in the other chamber. Meaning the Boehner plan is DOA in the Senate. And the Reid Plan is DOA in the House and probably won't even pass in the Senate, because probably the entire Senate Republican Conference will vote against it because it's not the House GOP plan. And a lot of the Senate Democratic Caucus will vote against it, because the Reid plan doesn't have revenue increases in it. Even though it does have defense cuts in it and has nothing, but budget cuts in it. 

My main issues with both leaders plans it that they don't have revenue raisers in it, no tax hikes on the wealthy or closing of tax loopholes. At least the Reid plan has defense cuts in it and cuts defense in a way that doesn't hurt our national security by using the revenue from ending military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and using that revenue to pay down the debt. Instead of putting it back in the defense budget or spending it on other areas in the Federal Government. 

I'm at the point now that I would settle for a debt ceiling plan that yes has budget cuts in it including in defense but everywhere in the Federal Government. That has entitlement reform in a way that doesn't hurt anyone that actually needs those programs. And I would accept just closing tax loopholes: over 3000 of them according to the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission. We could raise 100B$ a year or more to pay down the debt and deficit, just by closing the loopholes. 

With a good tax reform plan, we wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone to pay down the budget deficit and get the national debt under control. For example we could still keep the Home Mortgage Deduction, but end that deduction for second homes like vacation homes. We could raise a lot of revenue there, as well as wiping out fraud in Unemployment Insurance. Like for people collecting it, but not actively looking for work, or ending Food Stamps for people who aren't eligible for it. Or overpayments in Medicare and Medicaid. 

We can reform our entitlement programs without hurting people that actually need them. Requiring wealthy people to pay more into Social Security and Medicare and collecting less of it. And use those savings to help pay down the debt and deficit. 

I believe Speaker Boehner is trying to put together a proposal that could get more support than previous debt proposals from the House. And that Leader Reid is trying to see where the actual support for these debt proposals are especially in the Senate. Including on his own proposal which he finally put on the table. 

My other issue with these debt proposals is that they are both temporary, meaning Congress and The White House will have to deal with this issue in a few months. It's time to have a debt plan that Congress can agree on that gets us past this issue so they can move on to other things.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'President Obama's Health Care Reform

Source:Liberty Pen- Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson, about President Barack Obama's health care reform plan.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the proposition that government can operate a health system more efficiently than the market." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

You look at the Affordable Care Act of 2010 objectively, you'll see what is basically a health insurance reform law. As well as expanding health insurance through the private market for people who can't afford health insurance on their own. 

It's not "government-run health care or health insurance" that Democratic Socialists in America were calling for: a single-payer Medicare for all health insurance law, with government-run hospitals, thats similar to Canada or Britain. There's no new entitlement program in the ACA that the right-wing claim is is in it. 

The ACA simply reforms the private health insurance industry to prevent them from abusing its patients. Like dropping them from coverage just because they get sick, ending lifetime caps on the amount of health insurance they can consume. Or kicking them out of hospitals before they are ready, closing the "doughnut hole" in Medicare and making that program more affordable. 

The Affordable Care Act is simply a Patients Bill of Rights, that expands health insurance coverage for 30M Americans who can't afford health insurance on their own or their employers plan, through the private health insurance market, with a tax credit that helps people pay for their health insurance. 

And it's not just President Obama's health care law, but it's also every Democratic Member of Congress who voted for it and got an amendment attached to it. As well as every Republican Member of Congress who got an amendment attached to it as well. They all own at least a piece of the Affordable Care Act. 

What I believe the President originally wanted to do was design a new health care system for America that would be similar to France a combination of private and public health insurance, but where the people not the government would decide for themselves where they got their health insurance and health care. And wouldn't have to get it from a private or public monopoly. Thats what France has and France health care system costs half of what ours does. 

The reason why the President pushed hard for a public option in health care reform, a non-profit health insurance provider that would be independent of the Federal Government that people could choose or not choose. The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law by far but its a good first step in reforming our health insurance system that cost twice as much as the rest of the developed world for similar outcomes. 

I would like to see a public option in the future as well as more reforms to brings down our overall health care costs.

VOA News: Carol Castiel- Interviewing Marc Ginsberg: 'On Morocco's Constitutional Reforms'

Source:VOA News- Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, talking to VOA News about Morocco.

"Voice of America (VOA) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the U.S. federal tax budget. It is the largest U.S. international broadcaster. VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people." 

From Wikipedia 

"Former US Ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg speaks out on the landmark constitutional reforms in Morocco on VOA's Press Conference USA with host Carol Castiel." 

From VOA News

The idea that a country the size of Morocco (32 million people) with a vast amount of land in the Arab (or Berber) world, is even talking about progressive reforms in their Constitution, is a huge step. 

But what I believe what Morocco should do is move to a constitutional monarchy like let's say Spain, where the Monarchy is still there, but doesn't run the executive branch of government (the Administration) but has more of a ceremonial role like in Britain. But where you have a civilian administration with an elected president or prime minister who appoints the cabinet, but has to be confirmed by an elected parliament. 

The good news is the King of Morocco has already sort of moved in this direction where they now or will have an elected Prime Minister and an elected multi-party bicameral Parliament. Morocco could definitely move from being the Kingdom of Morocco where the King is essentially a dictator with vast powers, to the Constitutional Monarchy of Morocco with branches of government, an executive with an Elected Leader, an elected multi-party bicameral Parliament,  and an independent judicial branch, thats appointed by the executive and have to be confirmed by Parliament. 

Similar to Spain, Morocco could be a very progressive country at least in Arabia as well as the rest of the World, that has a ruling party in the Executive with a multi-party Parliament, that respects minority rights for the parties that are not in charged of a chamber in Parliament, or both Chambers of Parliament. That also respects both men and women, racial and ethnic minorities, and religious minorities. Where the people can live their own lives with a basic Bill of Rights and not be thrown in jail when they express their rights. 

This is a system that I believe Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf monarchies should look at as well. There's a clear message that I believe is being communicated in Arabia, that they are tired of authoritarian rule and want they ability to live their own lives and elect their own leaders. 

It's a good sign that the King of Morocco has taken it upon himself to move to reform the Moroccan Government and give his people more power in how they live their own lives and select their  leaders. And I believe what they are doing is something that the rest of Arabia should look at and could learn from.

Senate Democrats: Senator Chuck Schumer- To GOP: 'Grover Norquist's OK Letting Millionaire Tax Breaks Expire in Debt Deal'

Source:Senate Democrats- Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) talking about anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

"Senator Schumer reminded House Republicans this morning that anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has given permission to let the Bush tax breaks lapse, making it easier for Republicans to support revenues in a debt deal." 

From the Senate Democrats

I actually still disagree with Conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist about his latest position on the Bush tax cuts. Letting them expire would be a tax hike, perhaps not a Tax Raise meaning creating a new tax bracket, but it's definitely a tax hike, for the simple fact that increasing the tax rates on wealthy people from what they are currently now would mean they would be paying more in taxes in both percentage and actuality. 

But thats fine with me because high-earners should pay more in taxes and get a lot of their tax loopholes closed for the simple fact that we have a huge debt and deficit problem that needs to be addressed. And these tax hikes would raise around 200B$ a year in new tax revenue that would paid to help pay down the deficit and debt. Not to be reinvested in the Federal Government on new spending that the so-called House Progressive Caucus and its allies would like to see done with that revenue. 

This revenue wouldn't hurt the economy, because high-earners aren't spending much of this money right now to create new jobs and invest in the economy. And that they can afford these tax hikes right now because of how well they are doing right now and how well they have been doing. 

What I'm not in favor of is letting the all of the Bush tax cuts expire or passing new tax hikes on the middle class. Which again is what the so-called House Progressive Caucus and their allies are in favor of and reinvesting that money in the Federal Government for new spending. 

Passing tax hikes on people who are struggling just to pay their bills right now and perhaps living off of whatever savings they may have and are perhaps unemployed, would be bad for the economy, because these people would have even less money to spend, which means they would spend less. The last thing we want to do right now is create less demand in an economy with low demand, which is one of the reasons for our high unemployment, low economic growth, and Low job growth. 

What we should be doing instead is encouraging the middle class to spend more money to create more demand in the economy. Which would create higher job growth, and higher economic growth and create more jobs to lower our unemployment rate. 

I'm glad to see Grover Norquist come to his senses (so to speak) and wake up to the fact that new tax hikes on the wealthy could be part of a deficit reduction package. Perhaps I'm taking his position too far and some of this on his position is wishful thinking. But he apparently he has opened the door to tax hikes.

Associated Press: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney- 'President Obama Is Willing to Take the Heat'

Source:Associated Press- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, talking to reporters.

"White House Spokesman Jay Carney says President Barack Obama is willing to take political heat from fellow democrats in order to get a debt deal completed.  He also says the GOP needs to compromise for the good of the country. (July 20)" 

From the Associated Press

In the last day some adults have merged in Congress, mostly in the Senate, but a few in the House as well in the Democratic Caucus. But adults have emerged in both party's in the Senate with Republican Senator Tom Coburn and the bipartisan "Gang of Six". And have put together deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan, that would raise the debt ceiling, but would also move to get our deficit and debt under control. 

This bipartisan plan would cut the Federal budget around 4T$ of the next ten years, but do it in a way that not only gets our deficit and debt under control, but doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hurt. 

The House Democratic Leadership led by my Representative Chris Van Hollen (the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) has also offered a plan that cuts about as much as the Coburn and the "Gang of Six" plan. The Van Hollen plan reduces the debt by about the same over ten year and also in a comprehensive way. With tax hikes on people who can afford it the wealthy, as well as budget cuts in defense and in other places. As well as closing tax loopholes, a plan that would cut the debt 75-25 as far as budget cuts over revenue raisers. 

Democrats are already on board on budget cuts and I believe Congressional Democrats would also get on board on entitlement reform, if it doesn't effect people who need those programs right now and into the future and saves those programs. So Congressional Democrats and the White House are willing to give the House GOP 2/3 of what they want: budget cuts and entitlement reform and except for a few, have shown a little willingness to cut tax loopholes and defense. 

The House GOP has basically been in this "my way or the highway approach" thinking they have all the power in the Federal Government, when they really only have 1/3 of it. This is called divided government for a reason. For bills to become laws and not just bills that are sent from one chamber to the other and die. Both chambers and both party's have to work together just to get a bill sent to the White House. 

And then Congress has to work with the President for that bill to become law and for him to sign it. This is something the House GOP doesn't understand yet and why we are still coming up close to the August 2nd debt ceiling deadline without a final resolution. 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus on the Far-Left is not going to get what they want, they don't have enough members or pull a lot of sway except with the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But Minority Leader Pelosi isn't the Minority Leader for nothing, she's not in charged of the House and can't push a bill through it on her own. The Progressive Caucus won't get a deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan that has a trillion dollars of tax hikes in it and guts the national defense. 

The Tea Party Caucus on the Far-Right won't get everything they want either. They won't be able to convert Medicare and Medicaid into voucher systems. They only have power in the House and not much if any in the Senate. 

So for there to be a final agreement that can pass both chambers and get signed into law. The House and Senate are going to have to work together and with the President, to get some thing and give some things. Or nothing will happen.

Solid Principles: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 'On The Failed Liberal Agenda'

Source:Solid Principles- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican Arizona) 

"An Excerpt from a speech from Barry Goldwater on the failed policy of the Liberal Agenda.  Proof that history is repeating, or liberals don't learn from their own history." 

From Solid Principles

What Senator Barry Goldwater called a "Failed Liberal Agenda" (as he saw it) like the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s and even President Eisenhower to a certain extent, even though he was a Center-Right  Progressive/Conservative (lets say) with the Federal Highway System of the 1950s, wasn't a "Liberal Agenda." At least in the economic sense. 

If you look at the word liberal and what it means politically, which is how I describe my politics, sure it was liberal in the sense of its size and how big it was and how much of it there was, but that wouldn't be the political definition of liberal. 

The agenda that Senator Goldwater from an economic point of view by its political definition, is not liberal. The agenda Senator Goldwater was talking about was a social democratic agenda. Social welfare policies to create the American welfare state, which really isn't a welfare state, but a safety net and they're different.

Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Welfare Insurance, etc. With the New Deal in the 1930s. And Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, etc, with the Great Society in the 1960s.

These are all social insurance programs that Progressives and Social Democrats were able to push through Congress in the 1930s and 1960s. Now I wouldn't of designed those programs the way they were originally designed and I don't believe anyone who is not a Socialist would design those programs that way today either.

I would've designed those programs, especially for the poor and unemployed, to empower them to get themselves to self-sufficiency. And would've added choice and competition from the private sector as well, so these people would have an option of where to receive their public assistance from. 

And with the programs for senior citizens, again more choice and competition and the ability to finance their own retirements so people aren't so dependent on Social Security in their senior years. But these programs which by far, none of them are perfect and all of them need reform today, have all worked at least to a certain extent.

If you look at Social Security- That program has provided millions of senior citizens the ability to not live in poverty.

Unemployment Insurance- Again has provided people with the ability to not live in poverty and not go homeless.

Welfare Insurance- Which by far hasn't been an overall success, at least up until it was reformed in 1996, has given millions of Americans the ability to not go homeless.

Medicare- Which needs major reform, has guaranteed millions of Americans the ability to have health insurance once they retire.

Medicaid- Which again needs major reform, has given millions of low-income people health insurance that they wouldn't otherwise had.

Public housing- Again no one other than a sSocialist would design that program the same way today. Without that we would probably have tens of millions or more people living homeless today.

All these programs are far from perfect when they were originally designed and don't meet a lot of the demands today and all need to be reformed. But they've all contributed to making America a greater society.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Barack Obama's Vision'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge.

"(2008) Thomas Sowell discusses his concerns with the unconstrained vision of Barack Obama. Liberty Pen."

From  Liberty Pen

I have my issues with Barack Obama as well. He was actually my fourth choice for President in 2008. We Democrats unlike Republicans, today had a deep presidential field in 2008.

My first choice was Al Gore but he decided not to run for President. My second choice was Bill Richardson but his campaign went nowhere in the Democratic primaries and was unable to raise a serious amount of money. My fall back option was Hillary Clinton because even though I had issues with her which mostly went to character. I saw then Senator Clinton, as very political and looking mostly towards her political career, rather than doing what's right. But I saw her basically as a Progressive who wouldn't do anything stupid or crazy and run too far to the left to appeal to Democratic Socialists in the party.

Obviously none of my choices came through. I didn't support then Senator Obama from the start because I saw him as a Democratic Socialist trying to transform America into another Europe. Which is why the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party threw all of their support behind Senator Obama, rather than Representative Dennis Kucinich, who they are more ideologically in touch with. Because they saw Barack Obama as a candidate who could not only with the Democratic nomination for President, but win the general election over John McCain in November of 2008 which of course is what he did.

My other fear about Barack Obama is that he would tax and spend and not do what it took to protect the country. So far in Barack Obama's presidency my fears going into his presidency have been wrong. My problems with President Obama's leadership now are exactly about his leadership. I see him as somewhat weak, to willing to lay down goals of what he wants to do. And not willing enough to lay down a vision on how to get there. Too willing to say this is what I want done and then forming a committee and telling them: "this is what I expect you to accomplish, tell me what you come up with and I'll let you know what I think about it."

Barack Obama despite all the claims that the Far-Right have made about him, is no Socialist. His faith in the welfare state is clearly limited, which is something I actually like about him. He would actually be an insult to Socialists to call Barack Obama a Socialist. His supporters from 2008 the people that were with him the whole way up until 2010 ,could be called Socialists. Despite all the claims that the Far-Left have made, Barack Obama is no Conservative either and would actually be an insult to Conservatives to label Barack Obama a Conservative.

What Barack Obama is even though his Senate voting record makes him look a lot farther to the left, is a Center-Left Progressive, similar to Teddy Roosevelt. Basically a Progressive similar to Bill Clinton, perhaps a little farther to the left, still a Progressive like Clinton, but more cautious and willing to compromise, rather than make a good deal than just fight the fight. At least thats how he governs, I'm talking more about his governing style. I believe his actual politics are farther to the left and has a bolder vision of what he wants to accomplish.

But President Obama's practical side tells him that only so much is possible and you should just try to accomplish that or you'll be left with nothing. And I believe the same thing can be said about Bill Clinton, who personally is a Progressive-Liberal. ( In the classic and real sense )

As a real Classical Liberal myself ( the reals Liberals in America ) who just views myself as a Liberal, I have my own issues with President Obama and they don't just have to do with his leadership but his politics as well. I wish he was stronger on gay rights like with gay marriage, but I believe he's been strong everywhere else on gay rights.

I wish President Obama would come out for marijuana decriminalization and come out for reforming the War on Drugs more broadly. So we stop treating drug addicts like criminals and treat them like patients that need help. I wish he would come out for prison reform so we can do something about reducing or 2M prison inmate population and start preparing these inmates for life on the outside as well as alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders.

I wish President Obama wouldn't have signed the Patriot Act which I believe is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Which is why he voted against it in Congress. And his latest position on the War Powers Act as it relates to Libya to me is quite frankly scary, the sixty days have long past. But he doesn't believe he needs a Congressional resolution on it.

President Obama is no Socialist or no Conservative. He's a Progressive or at least thats how he governs. Because I believe he believes thats the best way a Democrat can get reelected President of the United States and win Independent voters, who rather make a good deal then fight the good fight.

Liberty Pen: The Charlie Rose Show- Thomas Sowell: The Vision Of The Anointed

Source:Liberty Pen- author Thomas Sowell, on the Charlie Rose Show, talking about his book.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the premise behind his book, "Vision of the Anointed." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Anytime I here someone or a group of people say that they have a plan or a vision on how to make people's lives better, especially low-income and low-skilled people and they say: "Trust us, you no longer have anything to worry about, we'll take care of you or something." I get skeptical. (To put it mildly)

Who are these great society planners to decide how others should live their own lives and make more people dependent on government for their economic survival? Especially planners who are attempting to plan the lives of others they've never met and never know and in some cases are planning the lives of others from 3000 miles away. 

If you want people to be free especially in a free society and especially for people who haven't had a full taste of freedom because they are lets say economically challenged, they simply don't have the money that middle class people and high- earners and to compound the problem, don't have the skills to get a good job to have those advantages, you empower these people to further their education so they can get a good job and live in freedom on their own.

Let economically challenged America be free. Give them the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves and their families. Instead of making them dependent on government or more dependent on government, funded by of course taxpayers.

Empower the economically challenged to get the skills that they need to be self-sufficient in life and not need government to take care of them.

All social insurance programs that are designed to help low-income and low-skilled people, should be designed to empower them to take care of themselves. Thats my main issue with the New Deal and Great Society programs, because even though they both provided assistance for people who were economically disadvantaged, they didn't empower them to get the skills that that they need by helping them go back to school or go to school. Or receive additional skills in school to be able to finally take care of themselves. Creating this "culture of dependency" on public assistance for people to survive.

Socialist-Collectivists believe in taxing the rich for one reason: to take from the rich and to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. And they of course have this collectivist view that no one should be rich and be able to make a lot of money. Especially compared to the rest of society, even if their skills and production give them the ability too.

The answer to helping the economically disadvantaged is not to take from wealthy people just to give to low-income people. What we should do instead is to create more wealth.

First, by leaving in the incentives for people to make a good living legally and through hard work.

And to empower low-income people to get the skills that they need to do the same thing. It's the collectivist vs individualist argument.

Liberal economics is about liberating people in need to clime the economic ladder and liberate themselves from poverty. Yes, through some public assistance like short-term financial assistance to help people in need survive short-term. But just as important if not more important empowering people in need to liberate themselves from poverty and live in freedom on their own. That gets to things like education, economic development, and infrastructure. Not to take from people who've already made it to subsidize the economically disadvantaged. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing- Joshua Landis: 'Syria's President Offers Future Reforms, Blames Conspiracy For Protests'

Source:The Real News Network- Civil war in Syria.

"Joshua Landis: Most Syrians want deep political and economic reform but fear ethnic civil war." 

From The Real News Network

The last thing that America needs to do is to get involved in another foreign war. Especially since we are already involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya as well. And with the President's current position on the War Powers Act, I'm not willing to endorse the idea that we get involved in Syria either. 

But this doesn't mean the West including America and Arabia should be silent on what the Assad Regime is doing about the democratic protests in Syria either. There are other things that we can do to push Syria to stop the crackdowns on the democratic protests there that wouldn't have to involve committing American or NATO troops there.

Like with economic sanctions there, but do it with a coalition, that includes America, Canada, the European Union and the Arab League. As well as sending in a military force that could include, Turkey, perhaps Israel, the Arab League and maybe even the European Union. Not to take down the Assad Regime and wipe out its military, but to provide protection and cover for the democratic protesters there, to prevent violence and to defend the protesters there. 

And the American military could assist in a way not with troops or planes or ships, but with resources and equipment to whatever international coalition that would develop to protect the Syrian people from unfortunately their own government.

As well as we could essentially bribe members of the Assad Regime and it's military to defect from that Regime, including President Assad himself. And get an agreement with the Syrian opposition to not prosecute, or punish whoever were to defect from the Assad Regime once they were to take power. 

We could help push the Assad Regime out-of-power and to make room for a new democratic government, or a transitional government to start off there. Similar to what's going on in Egypt until they elect a new government with peaceful means.

The last thing that America needs to do is get involved in another war, as far as committing more troops, bases, tanks, planes, ships, etc. Especially since we are currently paying for two wars that we can't afford by borrowing all the money. But what we can do is assist others in doing this to promote a peaceful resolution in Syria and bring the Assad Regime down. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Associated Press: 'Give President Obama New Debt Limit Power, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Says'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and Senator Tom Barrasso (Republican, Wyoming)

"The Senate GOP has offered to give Pres. Obama new powers over the debt limit by letting him request increases in the government's borrowing authority over the next year, as long as he simultaneously proposes spending cuts of greater size." 

From the Associated Press

I think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is actually on to something here (finally) but I would amend what he's trying to do. 

I believe if the Federal Government if they are going to be able to borrow more money by raising the debt ceiling, they should show that are willing to start paying their bills by actually paying them and not borrow more money to pay other bills. Its a way to bring fiscal responsibility to a bloated Federal Government that I believe at least at times has no concept of the idea. 

The Federal Government can do this in a way that doesn't hurt the country in any way, aid to the poor, aid to senior citizens, national security, etc. The United States Government has borrowed literally 4T$ in the last 2 1/2 years, not all of it the Obama Administration's fault, but it's all happened on their watch and they are responsible for dealing with it while they are in charge and they know this. 

So what I'm proposing is that we raise the debt ceiling by 4T$ but we simply pay for it. If we pay for the 4T$ that the FEDS have borrowed, then we go back down to a 10T$ national debt which is still way to big, that would still be 70% of our gross national product (or GDP) but thats a lot more manageable then 14T$ or 90% of GDP where it stands now. And by paying the 4T$ off, we can also pay down our 1.6T$ budget deficit and move to start paying down the national debt as well. 

This would also be a boost to our economy because it would boost the American dollar and be an indicator that America is finally getting serious about its deficit and debt and that we are finally paying our bills and will not become another Greece that is dependent of foreign money just to pay its bills. 

Again we can pay for the debt ceiling increase without hurting anyone, by reducing our defense spending in areas like defending developed nations that can afford to defend themselves and closing those foreign bases. 

Reforming our social insurance programs like our entitlement programs, in a way to design them just for people that need them, which is another way of saying means testing. Reforming our other social insurance programs like our anti-poverty programs in a way, so they are designed to move people off of them and into self-sufficiency. 

Ending corporate welfare including agriculture welfare and other tax loopholes and then raising taxes on people who can afford to pay them. Like a new millionaires tax and a new billionaires tax. And using all these savings to pay for the debt ceiling increase and start to pay off the broader national debt as well. 

We can pay for the debt ceiling increase and pay down the deficit and debt without hurting anyone who needs public assistance with strategic budget cuts, reform and demanding more for people who can afford to pay more.

Wide World of Wisdom: Fred Barnes- Interviewing Thomas Sowell: 'The Difference Between Liberal & Conservative'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- conservative writer Thomas Sowell, being interviewed by FOX News's Fred Barnes, in 2006.

"Thomas Sowell discusses characteristics that define liberals and conservatives, and his own personal transition from Marxism to libertarianism. From: "Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction"

Fox News (2005)" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

If you look at what actual classical liberalism is ( which I just view as liberalism ) and you look at what classical conservatism, ( which I just view as conservatism is ) actual liberalism and conservatism, they are actually not that different. They both believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they both believe in protecting and defending those rights.

Both Liberals and Conservatives, believe in individual liberty and individualism, they are both internationalist on foreign policy, they both believe in a strong national defense, they both believe in American capitalism, they both believe in limited government.

Liberals and Conservatives,  actually have a lot in common, perhaps more than they don't have in common. They both believe in self-governance, that people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. That government should protect innocent people from being harmed by others, but not try to protect adults from themselves. And not try to regulate how adults live their own lives.

The differences come in how these things are carried out. They have differences when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, they are both internationalists, but in different forms. Liberal Internationalists tend to be more willing to negotiate and Conservative Internationalists tend to be more willing to use military force.

Liberals tend to be more in favor regulation in the economy to prevent people from abusing other people. Conservatives tend to believe that regulation isn't always needed and that the private market can work these abuses out on its own.

Liberals and Conservatives, both believe in limited government, but again in different forms and I'll use the economy as an example. Liberals tend to believe that government can be used to help people who are down help themselves to become self-sufficient. Conservatives tend to believe that a lot of these social services should be privatized and let the market empower these people instead.

See, liberalism and conservatism are both centered around the U.S. Constitution and individual liberty. Protecting individual rights and letting people live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and conservative meaning someone who wants to conserve. And when it comes to politics and government, that means conserving constitutional rights for individuals. 

Liberals and Conservatives might have more in common than they don't and why they are the two leading political ideology's in the country right now. With democratic socialism and authoritarianism, whether it's theocratic or or secular being on the outside looking in. Instead of being considered part of the mainstream of American politics.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Kesler: 'On The Grand Liberal Project'

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Kesler, being interviewed by Peter Robison, on Uncommon Knowledge.

"In a sweeping review of American political history, Kesler outlines the grand liberal project begun a century ago.  It is a project, he asserts, that has expressed itself in three distinct waves: political liberalism, economic liberalism, and cultural liberalism.  Kesler further maintains that Barack Obama seeks nothing less than to complete and perfect this project.  Finally, he confronts the issues of how conservatism lost its way in the face of the liberal project and how it might regain its imitative." 

From the Hoover Institution

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American socialism, a political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there are left-wing governors and other leftist Democrats in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American socialism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better.

Socialists believe we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs: "That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions".

But the philosophy that I just described is not liberalism and is America’s version of democratic socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state, to assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. 

But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so-forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives, even though they're Socialists, which is very different. You have left-wing Progressives like FDR and LBJ and you have right-wing Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller.

But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out-of-work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.

When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.

Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that "personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them".

Another thing about liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America.

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. 

Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today's so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise.

CNN: Dr. Sanjay Gupta- Interviewing President Bill Clinton in 2009: 'Bill Clinton Compares Single-Payer, Universal Health Care Vs. Free Market, Private Health Coverage'

Source:CNN- President William J. Clinton (1993-2001) being interviewed by CNN about healthcare reform, in 2009.

"(3/11/09) Bill Clinton debates the merits of a pure, universal single-payer health care model vs. a free market, privately insured system.  Video: CNN's "Larry King Live" w/ guest host: Dr. Sanjay Gupta." 

From CNN

My ideal health insurance system as well as health care system, is a system that puts the consumers, not government in charged of where they get their health insurance and health care and how they pay for it. That doesn't put monopolies private and public in charged of where and how people get their health insurance. Where you have multiple health insurance and health  are providers, including non-profits competing with each other. To give consumers maximum access in where they get these services. Bringing prices down through competition. 

If people don't like the health insurance, or health care from one provider, they have the option to go somewhere else. Forcing providers to compete with each and force them to provide the best service possible to have the most customers possible. A health care system thats well-regulated, not over or under regulated, something like a Patients Bill of Rights in order to prevent health insurance and health care providers from abusing their patients. I'm against dumping people when they get sick for example, or having lifetime caps. 

I've basically just laid out the health care systems of France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Japan. Not the health care systems of Canada, Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. Which have single payer systems that Socialists tend to favor in America and in other countries. 

The Obama Administration during the health care reform debate of 2009-10, attempted to move our health care system, to the French-German public-private model. And even wanted to put through a public option non-profit health insurance provider that would be self-financed, self sufficient and independent of the Federal Government. This wasn't going to be some new entitlement program that would cover the entire country like a single payer system. And they got damn close to passing it before they settled for the Affordable Care Act.

My opposition with a single payer system is that takes power away from the people who would be consuming the health care system and giving it to government. As a Liberal I have a big problem with that, or any other attempt to take power away from people and give it to government. 

Yes, Canada and Britain's health care system costs half of what ours as far as GDP. But in my opinion Canadian and Brits pay a heavy price for it. They pay less money in exchange for less freedom when it comes to their health insurance. 

I rather pay a little more for health insurance, as long as I have the freedom in where I pay it. By the way, France which doesn't have a government-run system, but a public-private system, spends less of it's GDP on their health care system than Canada and Britain. 

If I had a choice in where I was going to live between these three fine countries and it came down to health care systems, I would take my chances in being able to speak French fluently and move to France. If America ever moved to the French model as far as health care and we were still paying more for our health care than Canada and Britain, but a little more, then it would still be a damn good investment for America.

CNBC: Michele Bachmann Interview- Economic & Social Policy

Source:CNBC- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) being interviewed by CNBC.

Michele Bachmann: “I have talked to business owners all across the nation,” she said. “They’re really paralyzed with fear right now. This won’t help hearing (the unemployment news) because it shows that Washington doesn’t have the solution.”

She spoke as Congress and the White House are locked in debate over whether to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Bachmann dodged a question over whether the failure to increase the borrowing limit while drastically cutting spending would raise unemployment, but she said more taxes certainly aren’t the answer, either.

“We need to fundamentally restructure how government does spending,” she said. “We’re still operating under the principles of FDR and LBJ. We need to move into the 21st century so we embrace pro-growth policies. Unfortunately they’re tone deaf here in Washington, D.C. They think government is the answer, and the American people know it’s not true.” 

From CNBC

"Michele Bachmann on social issues" 

Source:Think Progress- Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) on CNBC talking about her social issues.

From Think Progress

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool, that represents fiscal Conservatives meaning  business and Center-Right Republicans, national security Conservatives (probably meaning Neoconservatives) and people who are called social Conservatives. (Meaning Christian Conservatives) And in America that would mean the Christian-Right. 

Apparently Representative Bachmann did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy. But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her. 

This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Conservative-Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And she goes off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because her positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Christian-Conservative on social issues and a neo-con on national security and perhaps somewhat fiscally conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Conservative-Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still Conservative-Libertarians out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. 

Michelle Bachmann is a Christian-Fundamentalist a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

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

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- James Pierson: 'The Rise and Fall of Liberalism'

Source:Hoover Institution- Author James Pierson, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, talking about his book: The Rise and Fall of Liberalism.

"In Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, James Piereson asserts that, as the 1960s began, liberalism was  the single most creative and vital force in American politics and that the Kennedy assassination caused a split within this movement between its more traditional supporters and cultural activists that still exists today. Peter Robinson explores with Piereson how and why this happened -- how a confident, practical, forward-looking philosophy with a heritage of accomplishment was thus turned into a doctrine of pessimism and self-blame, with a decidedly dark view of American society."

From The Hoover Institution

Again I separate socialism from liberalism. And the progressivism From Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century all the way up through the 1950s up until John F. Kennedy, is progressivism in its best form and classical form and I would argue in its only form.

And the so-called Progressives of today that are part of the New-Left that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response in favor of the civil rights movement and the Great Society and of course against the Vietnam War, is a much different and more leftist movement.

The Socialist New-Left: People who tend to be against authority all together as it relates to law enforcement and national security and this movement got behind George McGovern for President in 1972 and Senator McGovern ran with them and lost in a landslide as a result.

So these are people who are called Progressives today or "Modern-Liberals", (a term I hate) but they aren’t either and I tend to call them Social Democrats or McGovern Democrats, McGovernites, Socialists, Communists in some cases, but they aren’t liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense or any sense at least from my perspective. Because they are not liberal, (to put it plainly) and tend to be illiberal. Because they tend to be against free speech and even property rights. They're so far to the left on economic policy and so anti-authority and rule of law when it comes to law enforcement and national security.

One of the reasons why the death of President Kennedy was so tragic was for both political and ideological reasons (from a Liberal’s perspective) because the 1960s was the decade that brought so much economic as well as personal freedom to so many new Americans. With the tax cuts of the early 1960s and the civil-rights laws of the mid and late 1960s, American women entering the workplace. And had Jack Kennedy survived and then been reelected in 1964 which of course we’ll never know, we probably are not involved in Vietnam the way we were. At least not invading the country.

And President Kennedy probably moves much more cautiously in Vietnam and we probably would’ve played a more of a supportive role there and not invading North Vietnam. And trying to wipeout the Communists on our own. So the Democratic South could govern the country. But of course we’ll never know this.

The 1960s was a great time for real Liberals not the New-Left because of the Cultural Revolution that brought so much freedom to new Americans as well as the economic freedom that came in that decade. But by the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the New-Left, it was a bad time for the Democratic Party.

Both sides of the American political spectrum have their centers and their cores. And the fringes that sort of give the Left and Right bad names and make them look bad as if the entire Left and Right is like that. And that’s what we saw in the Left in America in the 1960s and 70s. Where the Left in America was no longer made up of Liberals and Progressives. But the New-Left emerged of people who I would call Socialists. Some cases even Communists. Or Occupy Wall Street people of today.

The New-Left are people who do not see America as a great country, but a force for bad in the World. And want to try to make the country like Europe even though Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to go that far. And some people who call themselves FDR Democrats today do not even understand Franklin and just look up to him because of the New Deal. And see him as their vision for creating some type of European welfare state and finishing the job of the New Deal and Great Society.

But in the 1990s America liberalism made a comeback with Bill Clinton. And the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party was no longer in charge. And Clinton New Democrats were and the Democratic Party once again became about opportunity and freedom for all both economic and personal. Rather than being about the welfare state and government dependence.

As well as a country that could not only defend itself, but would do what it took to defend itself without trying to govern the world. Bill Clinton brought American liberalism back to life and made it a governing philosophy again and perhaps saved the Democratic Party as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.