The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Thursday, May 31, 2012

AP: Raw Video: U.S. House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban: The Day in Big Government



Looks like women won't have to ask Uncle Sam's permission to use the bathroom or interfere with her and her doctor in decisions they make regarding her health. A Federal appeals court rules that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that President Clinton signed into law back in 1996 that the Republican Congress passed, that President Clinton now says was a mistake to sign into law, is ruled Unconstitutional by a Federal appeals court. Because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A familiar ruling and why I predict that all same-sex marriage bans will be ruled unconstitutional in the future. 

New York City bans sweet drinks, how Mayor Mike Bloomberg was ever a Republican, I'll never know. Lately he doesn't look like a Democrat either, but governing as a Progressive or Democratic Socialist or Green. And apparently he feels he knows best what New Yorkers should drink, eat or smoke. I can understand no smoking sections in bars and especially on planes, as a non-smoker myself, but to tell people they simply can't smoke, interferes with their freedom of choice. According to the Los Angeles Time, California a state that almost passed marijuana legalization in 2010, that's now losing ground in the Golden State and with taxes going up, big government is on the march in California. 

Whether big government is coming from statists on the Far-Left or its coming from statists on the Far-Right, it's still big government. And it's too big, because it interferes with how free adults live their own lives, not how we live amongst each other. But how we live our lives as individuals. Whether it involves health care, with abortion or telling people they have to take government health insurance. Or outlawing same-sex marriage, because you don't like homosexuals and it violates your religious freedom to allow them to get married. 

How same-sex marriage violates anything to me, is a mystery that could make for a good book or movie. And maybe I'll write about that in the future or telling people they can't have soft drinks, because it's unhealthy for them, again interfering with how free adults live their own lives. We are a liberal democracy and because of that we have the liberty to live our own lives.  Statists whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right, seem to have such boring lives, that minding their own business puts them to sleep. So they feel the need to mind other people's business. What health care they can have, who they can marry, what they watch on TV, what they can eat and drink etc. And it's undemocratic because you are saying with these laws, that end up getting thrown out, is that you know best how to live the lives of the people you represent, better than them.



Wednesday, May 30, 2012

A Conversation with General C. Robert Kehler: A future of American National Security Policy



I wrote a blog about Syria yesterday and I'm go into that again with this post, other then to say, that Syria represents what America should be doing in the World. That we can't police the World but we can and have to defend ourselves, while at the same time help others who want the same Freedom. That Americans at times have taken for granted, which is the Right of Self Determination, we can't as a country police the World but we can't sit back and watch innocent people be murdered. By their own government, which is what's happening in Syria, with the United States doing not much more then to say, stop you are hurting me or in this case them. You shouldn't do that, sorta like sounding like the wimp in school, who gets pushed around and doesn't know how to stand up. You are not much of a superpower, which is what America still is, if you are not willing to use it, in a way that can save the lives of innocent people. Because then what good is you're power, what influence do you have to use something, that you aren't willing to use.

Again America can't police the World and I only repeat that to say, that we can't be everywhere at the same time. Be everything to everybody and do everything on our own but we can use our power, working with our allies and essentially surround Authoritarian Regimes, when they are murdering our own people. Of course not all conflicts are the same but we have good experience in the Balkans to show, working with NATO and the European Union, that Dictators, only respond to actions and power. That talk means nothing to them, they have the attitude of show me not tell me, which is what we did in Yugoslavia. When the Milosevic Regime tried to annexed the country of non Ethnic Serbians, Yugoslavia was a very diverse country. And we stepped in to prevent an Ethnic Genocide of, Albanians, Bosniaks, and Croats. What's going in in Syria is not an Ethnic Genocide but murders of people fighting for their Freedom.

No one serious is calling for an Invasion of Syria, especially one thats led by the United States. Where we would go in, knockout the Assad Regime and occupy the country, until the Syrian Opposition are ready to govern the country. But what we can do with our allies, is essentially bankrupt the Assad Regime, lock them in their own country, so they couldn't get supplies in or out. And arm the Syrian Opposition and have them take the fight to the Assad Regime.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Associated Press: Raw Video- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney- No Military Intervention in Syria

I’m not going to make the case that the United States can police the World. Actually I believe the opposite is true. I believe we are too involved in many places, especially in the developed world that has the resources to defend themselves. Like Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, but if there’s one thing that America has stood up for over the years, it’s freedom, democracy, self-determination, the rights for individuals to live their own lives. Without being harassed by their own government, human rights.

Basic individual and human rights are the things that people are fighting for over in Syria. That the Assad Regime is so against being the Baathist statists that they are. That they are willing to kill their own people, to prevent them from obtaining those things and as they are doing that. The West as well as the Arab League, is watching them do it and to a certain extent, complaining about how wrong it is and imposing a few sanctions. Which means nothing to an evil dictator, who’s only interested in staying in power. Bashar Assad doesn’t want to serve his people, he’s only interested in ruling over his people and doing whatever it takes to continue to rule over his people.

If you believe liberal democracy is important, actually forget liberal democracy. No one is ever expecting Arabia to be like America. But if you think democracy itself is important, whatever form of democracy it is, then you have to not only be willing to defend it for yourself so you don’t lose it, but assist those who are trying to obtain it for themselves, where you can. Syria like Libya, is an example of where America can help, along with the European Union and the Arab League. Not calling for an American invasion of Syria, we don’t need another Iraq War. We have nine years of experience to prove, the way we went into that doesn’t work.

But we need a coalition to step up and assist the Syrian opposition, at least in the short-term with resources, so they can take the fight to the Assad Regime. And lets see if the Syrian people can take down their own murderous regime themselves. America can’t police the World, we’ve already learned that the hard way, that we simply don’t have the resources to do that. But we can’t afford to stand by and watch the world blow up and see innocent people die, just because they are fighting for their own freedom. Especially since we are a country that’s supposed to think so highly of freedom ourselves. Especially since with all that we’ve paid for freedom ourselves.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Rain Forrest Moon: This Memorial Day I Will Remember You- The True Meaning of Memorial Day in America

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

The United States takes one day out of the year officially to remember and celebrate everyone who has served our country in combat and in our services. And the people who gave their lives and health, to serve their country and to protect everything that we value as a country. Which is our freedom, the ability for Americans to live our own lives. Memorial Day is not about weekend sales or parties or cookouts or the unofficial start of summer, in at least the Mid Atlantic and Southeast. And the first good opportunity to go to the beach. We just do those things as Americans to celebrate Memorial Day. We use our freedom to do the things, to celebrate Memorial Day, that our veterans have their gives lives and health. To allow us the freedom to, throw a party, go to a party, go to the pool, or go to the beach. Memorial Day, isn’t about perhaps the best three-day weekend of the year. It’s about the freedom to celebrate that day and that weekend and about the sacrifices that our veterans have made.

Our veterans have made those sacrifices and are still doing that today, with all of our troops around the world. So we can have the freedom to celebrate that day, those three beautiful hot days. (At least where I live) That we can enjoy, because we have the freedom to enjoy them, because of what our veterans have sacrificed to give us that freedom. So as we are celebrating this beautiful great day, going to our cookouts and parties, going to the pool, going to the beach, take at least a moment to see why you are able to do those things and remember that Memorial Day is not Party Day, it’s not Cookout Day, it’s not Beach Day.

Those are things that we do to celebrate and enjoy what is Memorial Day. And that we wouldn’t be able to celebrate Memorial Day if it wasn’t for the sacrifices that our veterans and their families have made so we do the things we do to celebrate Memorial Day. I promise this will be the only political thing I say on this post, but if there’s one day that we as Americans can come together and to celebrate, even as divided as a country that we are and have been for a while now, it should be Memorial Day. Because Memorial Day is about celebrating the people who have made it possible. For us to disagree and even be disagreeable with each other as a country.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Milton Friedman: Private Charity vs. Taxes: How to Help People in Need



America as a nation has had a long debate about how best to help people in need. To have the government takeover and handle what charities would do or at least give them a bigger role in dealing with poverty. As far as Public Assistance or do we get government out of the way all together and completely leave it up to Private Charity. To help people who for whatever reasons can't take care of themselves or does government continue to fund Public Assistance. As well as give out grants to Private Charity, before the New Deal was created in the 1930s. Almost all Assistance to the poor, was handled through Private Charity, with whatever role that State and Local Governments would play as well. But for the most part Assistance to the poor, was handled through Private Charity, which created a problem during the "Great Recession", because we ended up with more poor people obviously. As well as less people who were capable of donating to Private Charity, because now they need whatever money they still had, just to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

Government has a role in helping people in need, they do have the responsibility to assist people in need. They just don't have a dominant role but more as an assistant, a financial role to help Non Profits who help people who can't take care of themselves. To help those people get back on their feet and we don't need thousands of Federal Public Assistance Programs to do this. Where Uncle Sam should be involved, has to do with Welfare Insurance, for people who don't have the skills to take care of themselves. Dropped out of High School, didn't finish college etc, Unemployment Insurance, which should also include Employment Offices, to replace Unemployment Offices. As well as Public Assistance for Low Income workers, including Job Training so they can get a better job. Uncle Sam just as far as I'm concern, shouldn't be running these programs but more as financier and regulator.

Libertarians would like to eliminate the Safety Net in America and turn all of the responsibility over to Private Charity. Progressives would like to double the Safety Net and create a Welfare State and give most of the responsibility for Assistance to the poor, over to the Federal Government. What I would like to do is what Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Gary Johnson has proposed, which is to handover the Safety Net to the States as well as Non Profits. To help people in need, make it less centralize and get more people involved. Non Profits do a great job in this area and I would like to empower them to do be able to do more.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Egypt's Presidential Elections: "Three Things to Know": Democrats May be Taking Power



Very exciting times for the Arab Republic of Egypt, not sure if it will still be called that when they are done with their National Constitution. Hopefully they won't become the Islamic State of Egypt but we'll see but it looks like the Egyptian People will get to figure these things out for themselves. In the next few months, elections have consequences and the Egyptian People will hopefully make the right choices and hopefully they'll decide. That they want Freedom and to be Democratic, the largest country in Arabia as far as population, some 80M people with a lot of potential to grow. And eventually emerge as a Developed Nation, if the Egyptian People and their government allow for this to happen and they don't slip back into Military Authoritarianism or move to Theocracy. I doubt anyone is expecting Egypt to become a Liberal Democracy, whether inside or outside of Egypt though.

Egypt does have the potential to develop into some type of Democracy. Where they can select their own Leaders and Representatives, have choices in who they vote for, be free to speak and organize and be able to live their own lives. I wrote a blog last year arguing that the Turkish Model is the best way forward for Egypt. Where they have a Secular Government but where religion including Islam is respected and people can decide for themselves how to practice or not practice religion in Egypt but that the Federal Government would be neutral, other then respecting the right of religion. And what looks like is emerging now in Egypt, is that they have a choice between a Religious Conservative Party, the Muslim Brotherhood and a Secular Democratic Party or a Coalition of Secular Democrats.

Looks like Egyptian Democrats have the momentum and we'll see if they emerge in the Egyptian Elections, how they do in the Presidential Election and how they do in Parliament. And what Egypt will look like in the next few months.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Sean Penn on Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro: Progressives on Castro/Chavez Socialism



For the life of me I don't understand Progressives Love Affair or admiration with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Progressives are suppose to people that are about Democracy, Socialist Democracy, not my type of Democracy but still Democracy and yet they defend people, who are Anti Democratic. Who've attempted to centralize power with their Presidencies, in President Castro's case, have been successful in doing that, President Chavez's case still trying to do that in the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, still has that official name. But if President Chavez is successful, they'll basically be another Communist Republic in Latin America. He's already been successful in Nationalizing the Energy Industry, as well as at least certain parts of the media. But Venezuelan Democrats still have media outlets they can go to but in President Castro's case, its official he's had a Communist State in Cuba for over fifty years. This guy is not a Democrat and never has been, he's not even a Democratic Socialist, he's a Statist, who wants his people to be subjects of the State. And Hugo Chavez is one of Fidel Castro's biggest admirers.

So why would Progressives, people like Sean Penn who I generally have a lot of respect for, respect him more as an actor but thats a different story. Be standing up for people who are Anti Democratic, first its Castro, now its Chavez, who's next President Valadimir Putin of the Russian Federation. Who's not a Communist but certainly a Statist, who's really Russia's version of a Neoconservative, which is a little joke of mine but its true. I can understand why Progressives would speak highly of European Socialists or Canadian Socialist but all those people are Democratic Socialists. Those are the people that Progressives like Sean Penn and others should be speaking highly of, not Communists in Cuba, Venezuela or anywhere else, people who hold their own people down, because they don't want them to be powerful on their own. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez aren't people to be admired, unless you are a Statist.

Progressives seem to have this notion that Americans, especially the Federal Government, have no right to criticize people in other countries. Because we aren't perfect, that we can't speak out against Voter Fraud in Venezuela or anywhere else. Because we have Voter Fraud in our own country, if that was the rule, then no one would ever be able to criticize anyone else. Because no one is perfect and this would be a very quite World.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Michael Moore on The Sean Hannity Show: Debating American Capitalism and Castro Socialism



My main issue with Michael Moore is not with his, lets says Progressive Socialist politics, he's an American he can believe in anything he wants. My issues with Michael Moore have to do with his candor and honesty, he attacks a system thats benefited him very well. He comes from a good Working Class Community in Michigan, where he went to good schools, including college. Has gotten himself a very good education, worked hard, has been very productive, now owns his own Film Company. And has become a very wealthy man as a result in the Private Sector, government hasn't provided him with his wealth. Other then his education, he's bashed and Economic System that he's benefited from very well and then speaks highly of an Economic System. In a Third World country like the Communist State in Cuba, thats a Third World country, where the average Cuban makes somewhere around 5k$. Compared with the average American, that makes around 50K$ a year. So he's speaking down to an Economic System thats benefited hundreds of millions of Americans and speaks in favor of an Economic System thats put millions of Cubans in poverty.

You don't see American Progressives moving to Cuba to live there or move to Democratic Socialist countries in Europe to live there. Even though they speak in high praise of the Systems there, Mr. Moore speak in favor of the Cuban System but then says when asked why are they so poor, well because Cuba is a Third World country. Well the simple answer to that is, if the Cuban System is so great, then why are they a Third World country, its really that simple. Thats my issue with Moore, not about his politics but his candor, bashing a System thats worked so well for him. He can believe whatever he wants but when you make films like this, like praising Cuba and the Cuban System, thats a Third World country by the way. And then bashing the American System, that he's benefited so well from and thats my whole problem with Michael Moore. Is his honesty.

There's that old saying that you are entitled to you're own opinions but not you're own facts and that saying is so old. Because its said so many times and this saying fits very well with Michael Moore and why I don't take most of the things that Michael Moore says seriously. Its rarely that I agree with Sean Hannity on anything, as often as Jews hug Arabs and vice versa. But Hannity is correct when he say that Michael "trashes a system that he's benefited from".

Monday, May 21, 2012

AP Raw Video: Nato Protestors Target Boeing: Socialists on the March



Occupy Wall Street announced last week or a few weeks ago, that they were planning I guess what would be a spring offensive. And we've seen evidence of that already with their marches in Chicago this weekend, not just going after Wall Street, but now Boeing. They are mad as hell at corporate America and perhaps American capitalism all together and aren't going to take it anymore. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies.

It's not just Wall Street that they are pissed off at, but now corporate America as a whole and perhaps anyone who's wealthy and part of the 1% in America. That they don't see as progressive, but my question is what do they expect to get out off all of this other than venting on American capitalism. Do they believe any of the marches where their members get arrested for holding up traffic and disturbing the peace, do you think that comes across well with anyone, who can make a difference. And what they are trying to accomplish, putting a freeze on American capitalism, in order to buy time for them to install whatever they want to replace it with in the future. 

Leftists lets say, people who are further left than FDR Progressives and JFK liberal New Democrats, like to complain and bitch. And a lot of times only seem happier, or not as depressed when they have something to bitch about. There is a term for people like this and Democrats like this that was popular in the 1980s. Doom and Gloom or Doom and Gloomers, people who can only see the empty part of any glass that is not completely full that they try to drink out of. That is what OWS looks like to me. Mental patients that are never happy, always depressed and don't want to go home.

Then Candidate Obama when he was still a U.S. Senator and running for President in 2008, early went for lets say New-Left or even Far-Left McGovernite Democrats for their support. Which might make up the majority of OWS, to go along with some Progressives and perhaps Libertarians who are pissed off as crony capitalism, but aren't on board with what Socialists would replace it with. Because then Senator Obama believed that would be the easiest way to the Democratic nomination and to overcome Hillary Clinton, who had the backing of the Democratic Leadership. 

But after Candidate Obama secured the Democratic nomination, quickly pivoted to the center and ran as a center-left Liberal or Progressive Democrat in the general election. Like the smart or even slick politician that he is, get Far-Left on board to win the presidential nomination. And then run to the middle so you don't look crazy yourself and can appeal to Independents. And its pretty obvious he didn't want to be seen as closely linked to the Far-Left in the Democratic Party who look like nuts or aliens from another planet frankly to Independents as well as Democrats such as myself. 

People who live on communes, share a bedroom and perhaps even a bed with complete stranger so everyone has a place to stay and don't fit in with the country. I have no problem with people being different, hell I'm pretty different myself. But it's another thing to look like, or even be serious  about trying to take down something thats worked very well in this country. Which is private enterprise and education so people have what they need to do well in that economic system.

One thing that OWS is against, a lot of people actually agree with them, which is crony capitalism. But only a fringe of the country wants to replace American capitalism, with democratic socialism. We don't want to as a country, take apart companies that are very profitable and have produced a lot of good in this country, or nationalize private companies as well. And because of this OWS is just speaking amongst themselves and looking nutty compared with the rest of the country.


Sunday, May 20, 2012

Barack Obama: Mitt Romney- "I Stand by What I Said Whatever it Was": The Multiple Personality Presidential Candidate

Mitt Romney- Multiple Choice on All The Key Issues
Barack Obama: Mitt Romney- "I Stand by What I Said Whatever it Was": The Multiple Personality Presidential Candidate

This is the number one problem that Mitt Romney has going for him, that he’s a multiple personality presidential candidate. That if his real name was Flip Flopper, no one who knows who he is or has some idea who he is, would have no problem believing that. The line “I stand behind what I said, whatever it was”, could be Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan. Standing behind something you said and not even knowing what you said.

That would be like saying something in a bar when you were drunk and you can’t even remember anything from that night. And you said a bunch of things and someone who was at the bar, holds you to that statement and you tell them, “well I stand behind that. Even though I have no memory of actually saying that.” President Obama has a problem, but I guess it’s a good problem, which Mitt Romney does he run against and he’ll see more than one in this presidential campaign. Does he run against Liberal Mitt from 1994, Moderate Mitt from 2002, Religious-Conservative Mitt from 2007-08, Neoconservative Mitt from this years Republican primaries, or whatever Mitt decides to run for President in the general election.

President Obama, could say. “I kinda like the Mitt from 2002-04, the successful businessman, big believer in economic freedom. Liberal and tolerant on social issues.” Which is how Northeastern Republicans tend to be, but he could also use that Mitt against whatever Mitt we see in 2012. And he could tell Mitt, “you know I kinda like that guy from 1994 and 2002, whatever happened to that guy?” Independent voters would like that Mitt as well. And Mitt if he answered the question honestly, which is about as likely as Pat Robertson coming out for same-sex marriage, would say, “oh that Mitt is still there, I just keep him hidden, when I’m around Neoconservatives, who hate that Mitt and see him as an Un-American Socialist.”

Imagine that a successful businessman whose a Socialist, that’s today’s Republican Party for you. Please someone bring back Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan. Those guys seem completely reasonable to today’s GOP. I’ve said this for over a year now, the best thing that President Obama has going for him, is his competition or lack of it. With enemies like this, who needs friends, they would be the best members all of them, of the Obama Reelection Committee. Working for the President behind the backs of the GOP. Like Democratic espionage agents, screwing the GOP. And Mitt Romney is the Leader of this pack.


Friday, May 18, 2012

Malcolm X Network: Video: Malcolm X: You're Afraid to Bleed




All Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves to the point that they stop that threat. Doesn’t mean they have the constitutional right to kill someone exactly. But to stop the threat that’s opposing them. Which is what I would like to believe is the message that Malcolm X was trying to convey to African-Americans. But I know better than that and he was trying to tell them to take it a step farther. When racist law enforcement were abusing African-Americans for protesting, even peacefully. He wanted the people to physically fight back, even if that meant getting a big beating and ending up in jail. Where Martin L. King was saying, “don’t fight back physically. We have just as much of a constitutional right to free speech and assembly. We are more than within our rights here. And if we are attacked, it’s the racist law enforcement that’s breaking the law. And should be arrested and filling the jail cells of the peaceful civil rights protesters. Not the protesters themselves.”

Martin King’s message, was more about unity, not just uniting African-Americans. But the country as a whole, to bring non African-Americans into the movement, to make it look like a mainstream movement that it became, where you saw all the civil rights legislation that was passed in the 1960s, so the civil rights movement couldn’t be portrayed, “as a bunch of unhappy Negro’s, looking for special rights and are people who are un-American and need to be stopped.” Similar, but different in a way that gay Americans are being debated against today as well. Even though I don’t see both movements as equal, but both important. I see people fighting for civil rights, so they aren’t discriminated based on their race, ethnicity, or gender as more important than people being discriminated based on their sexuality. But that’s something worth debating about, I’ve had this debate between a friend of mine who’s gay.

Malcolm X’s main contribution to the civil rights movement, at least as I see it, was advocating for self-reliance and freedom for African-Americans. So they can live their own lives in freedom and not be harassed by government. And not have to live off of public assistance and be trapped in poverty. He would’ve made a hell of a Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat today. And based on these notions, I actually have more respect for him than Dr. King. Because of what he was trying to accomplish for African-Americans, was long-term. Which is to empower them to get out of poverty.

Political Dysfunction is "Even Worse Than It Looks": The Neoconservative War on America



I agree that the Republican Party, the Neoconservative Faction in the party, that now represents. The Christian Right, as well as Tea Party, as well as Neoconservatives who don't identify with the other two groups. Are a big problem with the American Political System right now, because of how partisan they are and how huge their quest for power is. Where they would have the White House and both Chambers of Congress, even a Filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So they wouldn't have to work with Democrats on anything, that is definitely there. Its not Conservatism thats destroying the Republican Party but its Neoconservatism that is, Conservatism put the Republican Party in power. And its the Party that Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan built, its the direction they've moved in post President Reagan, the direction they started moving in. Really since when Pat Buchanan ran for President for the first time in 1992, challenging President Bush in the Republican Primaries. And I agree with Thomas Mann the head of Government Studies at the Liberal Think, the Brookings Institution. That Republicans are more to blame here but Democrats aren't completely innocent here either.

Both parties have their fringes that are represented in Partisan Media, that basically sees their role. As to dig up negative information against the other side and the only positive info they report, is info that benefits their side. They both have their newspapers and magazines that do that, as well as Think Tanks. And these groups really only speak to the people that agree with them and no one else, except for maybe me to see what the Far Right and Far Left are up to. I'll give you an example, the Neoconservative Think Tank the Heritage Foundation for the Far Right and the Progressive Action Group, I guess I would call it. Think Progress really doesn't qualify as a Think Tank, they mostly report negative info about the other side. And then there are the newspapers and magazines, that are really Political Tabloids. Because they report about as much fact as a Tabloid, because they'll see a negative story about the other side. And try to make it look as bad as they can. Whether its true or not.

Neoconservatives have magazines have magazines like Commentary, Human Events, newspapers, if you want to call it news. Like the Washington Times and Washington Examiner, to go along with the Heritage Foundation. Progressives have magazines like The Nation, AlterNet, American Prospect and they see it as their role to report how the other side, is essentially screwing the country. As well as people in their party, that they don't see as loyal enough, people who work with the other party. Whether their spin of the story is accurate or not and even though they speak to small audiences, enough to sell out a Phone Booth. They have wealthy donors that can bankroll them, as well as dedicated contributers that contribute to them. Thats how they stay in business, even though most of the country doesn't take them seriously. As far as the things that they report.

The Far Right and Far Left are both to blame to why the Federal Government is dysfunctional right now. Because both sides are afraid to work with the other one, because of fears that their fringe will take it out on them. Challenge them in a primary, recruit someone to run against them in the next election. The reason why Republicans are more to blame right now, is because their fringe has enough power to take their Leadership down. Where the Far Left doesn't have the resources to put something like that together, because they won't take Corporate Money. They tend to be Anti Corporate all together and are more grassroots.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Malcolm X Network: Video: Malcolm X 1964: An American Nightmare



What Malcolm X was laying out in this speech, was what Africans-Americans have gone through since they were given their freedom and no longer slaves. And what they’ve gone through, since being free as slaves. All the racial discrimination that followed them, since being free. He was also telling African-Americans, not to fall in love with the Democratic Party. Which was a very important message especially in the 1960s. When the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party, had so much power in Congress. The so-called Dixiecrats, that could kill legislation on their own. To the point had it not have been for Congressional Republicans, classical Conservatives in that party, the civil rights bills of 1964, 65 and 68 do not get past. Because the Southern Caucus would’ve blocked them. Dixiecrats, today are now Southern Republicans, religious and Neoconservative Republicans. So he was telling his community, don’t fall in love with the Democratic Party. Because they haven’t done a hell of a lot for you.

Malcolm X’s, message about not falling in love with one party. Was not only very important back in the 1960s, but probably just as important today. Because once you put all of your eggs in one basket so to speak, you can be taken advantage of. Because the party can take the attitude, “why do we have to respond to their concerns. Why do we even have to listen to them, where do they have to go without us. Are they going to become Republicans, a party that’s lost the African-American vote overwhelmingly the last twenty years or so. It’s really President Reagan, who was the last Republican President, that could win any substantial votes in this community, with his two landslide victories in 1980 and 84. The problem with the Republicans Party, is that they’ve become the Dixiecrats and haven’t given the African-Americans much incentive to vote for them since the 1960s.

African-Americans like any other community needs to have choices in who to vote for. The Democratic Party now monopolizes this community because they’ve reached out to them. And we now finally have an African-American President. But Africans Americans tend to be somewhat Conservative on Social Issues, especially in the South. And believe in things like Small Business and being Self Reliant. Not being forced to live off of Public Assistance. And the GOP hasn’t done much to take advantage of that and believe to their loss.

Moriquenta: Noam Chomsky- America is Not A Democracy: The American Liberal Democratic Federal Republic

Source: Moriquenta- Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: Moriquenta: Noam Chomsky- America is Not a Democracy

Who needs foreigners or terrorists to bash America, when we have Socialists and Neoconservatives to bash America for us here in this country. Saying things like "America is not a Democracy", or we are moving away from our "moral center", or we are losing our "national morality". Which is why we need restrictions on how we live our lives. Of course America is not a pure democracy in the sense that we do everything by majority rule. We have things like the cloture rule and the 60 vote requirement in the U.S. Senate, as well as in some state Senate's. We have an Electoral College that protects small states in the presidential election and prevents the large states from electing all of our president's for the rest of the country for us. We have constitutional rights that can't be taken away from us, because one faction of the country thinks they're not necessary and are against them. So if that is what Professor Chomsky is getting to here, fine. But he's stating the obvious on that.

The question is not whether America is a democracy or not, the only question is what type of democracy we are. And there are actually several types of democracies. There are social democracies, that you see in Europe. Where personal freedom is strong, but where the state plays a heavy role in the economy to take care of it's people. There are majoritarian democracies that aren't real common anywhere, where you probably wouldn't have a national constitution. Or where it would be so weak, because most if not everything would be decided by majority rule, including amendments to the Constitution. Could you imagine if 50.1% decided that Americans no longer needs Freedom of Speech. They could throw it out, if they have at least one person more than the opposition that believes we no longer need Freedom of Speech. There are several different forms of democracy in the world. Social democracy being the most common.

What America is, is a liberal democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic. Where governmental power is limited and where individual freedom is vast. Just look at our Bill of Rights. And is one of the things that makes the United States so unique and one reason why Social Democrats and Neoconservatives don't like our form of government. And are looking to pass constitutional amendments to make our Federal Government more powerful, to make us look like other countries. Liberal democracy is where yes our leaders are elected. Meaning our legislatures and head's of state (lets say). Meaning the mayor's our of cities, our county executive's, our state governor's and of course the President of the United States. But with our right to vote comes basic individual constitutional rights, that can't be taken away from someone else's right to vote. We can't lose our free speech, because a faction of America sees free speech as dangerous and that is just one example. We're a liberal democratic federal republic, with yes the right to vote. But that also comes with basic individual constitutional rights, as well as checks and balances and check on authority. And there is no other form of government I would want to live with. 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

All New Cannabis Documentary!: The Benefits of Marijuana and the Costs of the War on Drugs



Last week Vice President Biden on NBC's Meet The Press, had what's been called a "gaffe" about Same Sex Marriage. Where he said he doesn't have a problem with it, which put some pressure on President Obama. To essentially say the same thing last Wednesday to ABC News 's Robin Roberts. Pressure because, the President's own Vice President at least officially doesn't have a problem with Same Sex Marriage. Why would the President have one, especially considering he's a Left of Center Democrat. President Obama has been struggling to appeal to both Democrats as well as Independent, who are both responsible. For putting him in the White House, he has to look tough enough, as well as reasonable to Independents. While at the same time appealing to Democrats and standing up for Democratic Values. He will protect entitlements and Civil Liberties etc, on Civil Liberties in my opinion and to many other Democrats. He's come up short, with the War on Drugs just being an example of that, which I'm going to get to.

Joe Biden is an accomplished lawyer, former Ranking Member and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the authors of the Violence Against Women Act, as well as the 1994 Crime bill. Barack Obama is an accomplished lawyer, former Law Professor and Community Organizer. They must understand these issues very well, forget about the politics for a second, they must understand what works and what doesn't work when it comes to Crime an Punishment. And the broader War on Drugs, which relates to Crime and Punishment and understand as well. That we now have 2M people in prison in America and around 500K or more, now doing in time in prison. For Drug Offenses, such as simple possession or use of narcotics and understand that money we are spending. Each year punishing people for what they do to themselves, locking people up in prison. Sending them away for years, for possessing pot or other narcotics. Or for being addicted to these narcotics, all the prison space these Drug Offenders. That we could save for real criminals, whop actually represent a threat to society, imagine that.

Again imagine Joe Biden and Barack Obama looking at the War on Drugs and Crime and Punishment. Just from a policy perspective and looking at the facts of these issues, they must understand what we are doing. What President Obama has pushed even farther, the War on Drugs, with all of the pot crackdowns, especially as they relate to Medical Marijuana. They must see that this is not working, that we War on Drugs is not working, that there must be a better way to deal with narcotics in America. If I had to pick just three issues that Democrats, especially Liberal Democrats. Progressive Democrats have many other issues with the President, which should be for another blog and I've covered in the past. The issues that Liberal Democrats have with President Obama, are the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention. All issues that the President at least officially supports that Liberals such as myself hate. And why are some of use are considering voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson for President.

How about this for a gaffe for Vice President Biden, at his next Campaign Event. Or some forum where the War on Drugs issue comes up, he announces that the War on Drugs is failing. And that the Federal Government needs to rethink its policy on Marijuana Prohibition. And how we deal with Drug Addicts in America, it would make huge news and may even put. The Vice President's job at risk but it would be the right thing to do, because he would be correct on the issue.

Monday, May 14, 2012

BookTV: In Depth- R. Emmett Tyrell: The Death of Liberalism

Source: BookTV-
Source: BookTV: In Depth- R. Emmett Tyrell

Emmett Tyrell is correct in one aspect about liberalism. That so-called Progressives have co-opted liberalism to make it look like what call progressivism which is really a form of socialism. Which is same thing thats common in Canada and Europe which is a political ideology thats centered around central government. That we give a lot of power to the national government to take care of the people through high taxes.

So-called Progressives tend to be somewhat liberal on social issues. At least for women and gays and to some extent what people should be allowed to see in entertainment. People who would call themselves Socialist Liberals. Some so-called Progressives describe their politics as Progressive Libertarian or Socialist Libertarian. Progressive or socialist on economic policy and even foreign policy, but liberal on social issues. But these people aren't Liberals but Democratic Socialists, with some liberal views on some key social issues. There are also so-called Progressives that are statist on come social issues as well. Like gun rights, hate Speech and even pornography to a certain extent. And believe in things like progressive class's. That government should give special attention to certain populations in our society. But these aren't liberal values, these are collectivist values.

It's not just so-called Progressives that have co-opted liberalism, that has given liberalism an inaccurate description and definition of what it really is. Which is about individual liberty, limited government and equal of opportunity, equal rights and other things. But hyper partisan right wingers so-called Conservatives, who've spent forty years attacking liberalism. And trying to make it look like socialism and to a certain extent they've had a lot of success with that. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this and how they've falsely described liberalism as well. The way they've falsely attacked President Obama and other Democrats, but this is now changing.

As I've argued before, this idea of the "Death of Liberalism" the claim that Emmett Tyrell has made. First of all I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud of it, the link of this blog is FRSFreeState.Blogspot.com. The name of this blog is FRS FreeState. The New Republic is still in business. A Liberal Democrat is the Deputy Leader of the U.S Senate, (Dick Durbin) the President of the United States is a Moderate Liberal. The Vice President of the United States is a Liberal Democrat.

The Democratic Party is now made up of Liberals who tend to run the party, Progressives who compete against us and our Far-Left that is made up of Green Democrats, people who are more comfortable in the Green Party ideologically, but are Democrats to be part of a major party. As well Centrist Democrats and a few Bible Belt Democrats who are Democrats in name only. It's not liberalism thats dead or dying, it's so-called Progressives that have co-opted liberalism to a certain extent. And right wingers that have been successful in making liberalism, look like socialism. It's conservatism thats in trouble in this country, as the Republican Party has become a religious and neoconservative party.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Barack Obama: Happy Mother's Day- The Day We Celebrate Our Wonderful Mom's

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I’ll try to not make this blog sound political and I’ll do my best. But keep in mind I’m a political junky, so take that for what its worth. Why would you take a whole day out of the year to do that. How about celebrating mother’s everyday? Well what they don’t understand is that we do that it’s just that we take a day out of each year, to make that day even more special for our mother’s than every other day of the year, except for maybe their birthday. To celebrate the women who gave us birth, who helped raise us up and in many cases, raised us on their own, or help from their parents. Because with out our mothers, we would’ve never been born. They not only gave us our lives, but gave us our births and played a big role in who we are.

I know this from personal experience and I know my brother’s would say the same thing. What I can say about my own mom, is as a kid, she would try to get me to do things she knew I didn’t like and would never do on my own. Like with the piano, not because she was trying to punish me or something, but because she wanted me to try new things. Experience things outside of my comfort level, to see what the World looks like outside of my own. My mom is very sweet and very intelligent, you don’t always see that verbally. As far as her expressing her feelings, but you see it in what she does for you and how she treats you. She’s always wanted you to be your best, whatever that is. One of the reasons why she sent me to summer camp, year after year as a kid, to help me be the best student I could be and learn new things and meet new people.

And then Mom sent me to basketball camp, so I could be a better basketball player. And perhaps to get me out of the house as well. She would put me in activities, that yes I would enjoy, but would enjoy learning about whatever it is we were doing. When I think of my mom, it’s what she tried to get out of me. Without her I’m not blogging, because I probably wouldn’t have considered writing at all. Because she’s my best critic and my best friend when it comes to my blogging. Because she tells me where I’m doing well and what I need to improve on. Which is exactly what I want and need, which is exactly what she did today. About a blog I wrote yesterday, she’s a professional editor and a damn good one. And I appreciate that and everything else she’s done for me. Happy Mother’s Day to all you mom’s, especially my own. Love you mom!

Saturday, May 12, 2012

The Onion: Minnesota Braces For The Return of Michelle Bachmann: The Week in What Didn't Happen, This Time Not From Fox News


Michelle Bachmann
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

The State of Minnesota has had five months to recover from the return of Representative Michelle Bachmann, who thank God doesn’t represent the whole state, only 600K or so Minnesotans have to put up with her. And a lot of those people are mental patients, which is Representative Bachmann’s base of support, being that she’s one of them, just on the lam. You would think that she would be easy to track down, seeing that she’s a U.S. Representative who works in Congress. But that’s perhaps a different story.

I thought I would give a status report on the damage that Representative Bachmann has caused. Report what’s she been saying and then report on what’s actually been happening. This week she endorsed Mitt Romney for President and within five minutes of that, Governor Romney’s polls with Independents plummeted and he lost ten points. The Flip Flopper in Chief, managed to bring those numbers back by supporting a constitutional amendment to make same-sex Marriage the law of the land. Which won him support with the homosexual community, something that only Mitt Romney can do. Being that he has a clones of himself.

In other news Representative Bachmann announced that there isn’t a Republican War on Women. Five minutes later she came out for a law that would ban women from the workforce. Her husband Marcus Bachmann also came out of the closet and supports Governor Romney’s constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage the law of the land as well. He also endorsed Mitt, but endorsed his clone Mitt, the liberal Mitt by accident. So the liberal Mitt picked up points in the homosexual community as well. Which doesn’t do much good for the real Mitt, whoever that person is.

The real Mitt is MIA and there’s an all points bulletin now to try to track down the real Mitt. Officials believe they know what the real Mitt looks like. They’ve seen pictures of him and have talked to Mitt’s other clones. Neoconservative Mitt, Moderate Mitt and Conservative Mitt. But have been unable to track down the real Mitt so far. So the week in what didn’t happen, this time not from Fox News, Fox News is currently on vacation, actually in court. Dealing with libel lawsuits filed against them by Democrats. But announced they’ll be back next week reporting everything that didn’t happen next week. Including a special report from Sean Hannity, on the Democratic War on Memorial Day. Honoring the service of our servicemen and women.
The Onion: Minnesota Braces For The Return of Michelle Bachmann's Full-Attention

The Onion: Andrea Barret & Piper Cahill- Mitt Romney to Travel Back in Time to Kill Liberal Versions of Himself

Mr. Flip Flopper-
This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Imagine if Mitt Romney could travel back in time to change more liberal positions he use to have, that me as a Liberal respect. Like when he supported civil unions for same-sex couples just six years ago. Just one position that has pissed off the Christian Right when he was Governor of the Democratic State of Massachusetts. Or back in 1994 and I’m guessing even before that, when he was running for U.S. Senate against Senator Ted Kennedy. Being pro-choice on abortion, or back in 2005-06, signing the twin brother or sister of the Affordable Care Act. Better known as ObamaCare.

But telling the difference between ObamaCare” and RomneyCare, is like telling the difference between the Olsen twins, seeing them for the first time. Or better yet imagine if Mitt could clone himself, when he’s running in Massachusetts. He’s the Liberal Mitt, when he’s running for president in a religious and neoconservative GOP. He’s a more Conservative Mitt, but not far enough for the Far Right. That he scares off independent voters, which is where he is right now.

If Mitt could clone himself, he would be the perfect unbeatable politician. Liberal on social issues, conservative on economic policy. Keeps your taxes and spending down, somewhere in between. Somewhere in between depending on if he listens to himself, or his clone. On foreign policy, he would be exactly where independent voters are. The Christian-Right, would hate him because he’s not trying to tell Americans how to live their lives. Progressives would hate him because he’s not spending every dollar Uncle Sam takes in, or increasing taxes on everyone. But if this were 1988 or 1980, the Romney Campaign wouldn’t even have to consider creating a time machine, or cloning Mitt. Because this is where the Republican Party use to be politically.

The GOP, so much liberal on social issues. But took the attitude that government shouldn’t be telling Americans how to live their lives. Which is actually conservative politics as well. Could the time machine be Mitt Romney’s secret weapon to winning the presidential election? What happens after he’s nominated by the GOP and sees independent voters that liked his liberal positions on social Issues? Wait! It’s a time machine, so he would be able to go back in time and delete his ass-kissing of Christian-Right Voters in the Republican primaries. A time machine would be a hell of a secret weapon, if only it existed. The problem is Mitt is stuck with whoever he is. At times its hard to tell with his flip flopping. I’m not sure even he knows who he is at this point.


Friday, May 11, 2012

Student Addicts Live, Recover Together at University Program: How to deal with Drug Addiction



My first blog about the War on Drugs in at least a few weeks. Spent the last two days blogging about Same Sex Marriage and President Obama's. Coming out on that, so to speak and saying that he believes it should be legal. Same Sex Marriage to be honest with you, is not an issue I think about a lot. I really don't consider it to be any of my business as a Heterosexual. If Homosexuals want to get married, thats their business not ours. My only concern about it as a Liberal, is Equal Protection, that Homosexuals get treated equally under law. I do have a strong interest and major concern about the War on Drugs. It concerns the whole country, we've all paid for it one way or the other. And this 1950s approach to narcotics in America, that people who are Drug Addicts. Are simply weak and immoral and need to be punished for their sins. Is outdated and is simply wrong, people who believe in this. Are stuck in a society of sixty years ago. And we've learned a lot about it the last 50-60 years. And have learned a lot about Mental Health in America, what works and what doesn't work. And we've learned that the War on Drugs doesn't work.

If people want something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it, especially if they are addicted to it. Even if that means going to jail or prison, so if you want someone to stop committing. What you see as bad behavior, you need to teach them that what they are doing. Like Drug Abuse, whether its heroin, cocaine, alcohol or tobacco. Is bad for them and that they should stop doing it for their own good. Thats what Drug Rehab is all about, teaching Drug Addicts about the consequences of peoples bad habits. And convince that they should stop doing what they are doing, so they can live a long productive healthy life. And not be in and out of the Criminal Justice System but what we do as a country. We lock people up in jail and prison, for being unhealthy, for treating their bodies in a bad way. When what we should be doing, is teaching Drug Addicts that their behavior is wrong. And get them off of their addiction. Thats what Drug Rehab is all about.

We need to as a country stop locking up Drug Addicts for using or possessing pot. Not treat them as criminals, not even give them Criminal Records. For Drug Use or Drug Possession, Drug Possession of narcotics should no longer be a felony. Stop arresting people for just possessing narcotics and fine them instead. And take away those narcotics and fine them based on how much their narcotics are worth. And get Drug Addicts into Drug Rehab at their expense instead. We would save a lot of money and lives with an approach like this.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

African American Pastor Against Gay Marriage, for President Obama: Religious Conservative African Americans



"Religious COnservatives" in America and I put that way. Because to me they really aren't Religious Conservatives, to me Religious Conservatism. Is about conserving Religious Freedom, not subtracting from it, not trying to combine religion with government. Understanding the United States is a Republic, not a Theocracy. Not even a Christian Theocracy, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans. Are Christian in one form or the other, I'm a member of a very small minority when it comes to religion. Which is fine with me, doesn't mean I'll change my mind on this issue. But people who get called "Religious Conservatives" or call themselves "Religious Conservatives". Are almost exclusively "Christian Conservatives" or even call themselves "Christian Conservatives". They tend to be Fundamentalist Evangelicals and they tend to get stereotyped, as Southern, rural, Caucasian, male and Republican. Bigoted even and even though a lot of so called Religious Conservatives. Tend to be Southern, rural and Caucasian, not all of them are.

The only two groups of people that Same Sex Marriage can hurt the President on. Are "Religious Conservative" African and Latin Americans. There are a lot of African American Baptists in this country and Latin American Catholics in this country as well. Who tend to be more what I would call Authoritarian on these issues. And look down on Homosexuality, like its some type of disease or something. Homophobia is across the board in all Racial and Ethnic Groups in America. Not just Southern Caucasians but what's going for the President. Is that "Religious Conservative" Caucasians aren't going to vote for the President anyway. And as far as "Religious Conservative" African and Latin Americans. They represent the small percentage of these groups that are already leaning Republican anyway. As far as Independent Voters, its still the economy stupid, especially if they are out of work. Or their income has been declining, work cut and so fourth.

Again Barack Obama is not God, I hate to break that to anyone. Who hasn't gotten the memo on that yet. He's a politician and what he did on this issue, was not only figure out where he was on it. Even though I believe he figured that out a long time ago but when he decided to come out on it. So to speak, he weighed the cost and benefits of going either way on it. And decided he needed to give Democrats another reason to vote for him.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

President Obama's Announcement on Gay Marriage: Strong Barack beats Cautious Barack on Same Sex Marriage



For the last four years or so, not everyday of those years obviously. I've been wondering why Barack Obama has been reluctant in supporting Same Sex Marriage. This should be an easy call for any Liberal Democrat, whether they are a Classical Liberal. Like myself or a Moderate Liberal like President Obama. Any Liberal who believes in Equal Rights and Civil Rights. Which we all do or we wouldn't be Liberals, as Vice President Biden said on Sunday's Meet The Press. Should have no problem with Same Sex Marriage, as the Vice President said. "I have no problem with Same Sex Marriage". This is not an issue that Liberals should care about, except for standing up Marriage Equality. The Far Right obviously hates this, because they see homosexuality as immoral. That Gays are going to hell because they are Gay. But why should Theocrats and Neoconservatives, why should any extremists. Get to decide for the President or for the country as a whole. How these issues are decided, how should they decide how any issues are decided.

Barack Obama is clearly a very intelligent man and politician and as much as this may kill Progressives to hear this. He's not the God they thought they were getting in 2008 or any God at all. He's a politician, not a typical politician but a politician. Who looks at these issues from a political point of view. How does these issues hurt or help me and that must of played a role in his thinking on this issue. Because the substance of this issue is pretty clear, should Homosexuals be treated equally under law or not. If your a Liberal and again you believe in Civil and Equal Rights, the answer to that question is obvious. Especially for a Liberal who was a product of the post Civil Rights Generation, who was born and was a child. With little to no memories of what was going in this period. At least as far as how they relate to Civil Rights. Who was a beneficiary of this movement, the answer of this issue should be clear. Its really the politics of this issue that I believe was the driving force.

Again Barack Obama is not a God but he's definitely a politician. And for me even though I bet he decided a long time ago what he felt about Same Sex Marriage. And his decision not to enforce DOMA, the "Defense of Marriage Act". Which denies the Federal Government the authority to acknowledge Same Sex Marriage. It was the politics but even that seem strange to me as well. Because who was he worried about offending, Religious and Neoconservative Big Government Republicans. Who see him as an Illegal Immigrant from Kenya, as well as an African Muslim Socialist. Is he really worried about offending these people. I believe it was a certain faction in the African American Community. And African Americans have their share of homophobes as well. Its not just Caucasian Fundamentalist Evangelicals who have issues with this. And the President knows of course he needs African Americans to turn out, work and vote for him in 2012.

It took four years for Barack Obama to do the right thing on Same Sex Marriage. But he finally got there, the only thing with the timing of it. It looks so political, because he knows Democrats, especially Progressives aren't crazy about him. And they are looking for more reasons to vote for him. Instead of fielding a Far Left Progressive Candidate to run against him. Or not bothering to vote for anyone at all.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

VOA News: Video: Henry Ridgewell: Greek Leftists Seek Coalition, Reject EU Austerity



With Socialists making a comeback in France, Greek Socialists now see an opportunity to throw their wait around in Greece. A country, thats buried in debt, making the American debt look like peanuts. Thats in the process of being bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Which is being led by Germany right now that has a Conservative led government. If Greece makes strict austerity measures, the Hellenic Republic of Greece, is essentially a Socialist State, where their welfare state is very popular, so making steep cuts in their welfare state, is not very popular. As their current government is finding out and as we've seen from the protests there.

And why Greece is headed for new Parliamentary elections. To hopefully for them, to form a new government. That can get its economy going again and get its debt and deficit under control. The main two political parties in Greece, are the Socialist Party of course and the New Republic Party. Which would be like the Conservative Party in Britain. The Socialists obviously being against austerity and the Republicans will try to push it. If the Greeks don't want to have to accept the demands of the European Union in resolving its debt and fixing its economy, as condition of receiving a bail out from European taxpayers, then they should fix their own problems. Resolve its own crisis.

And the Greek people should make a decision. Do they want the Socialists, or the Republicans to do this and give them the power to do it. But I don't see the European Union, even with the Socialists now in power in France, the 2nd largest State in the EU, continuing to give money to a country that continues to spend their money without serious reforms. If they don't want to meet the demands of the EU, especially being run by Conservatives, they should elect a Socialist Government to resolve their own problems. Otherwise elect a Conservative Government and meet the demands of the EU, or negotiate new conditions.

What Greece is going through right now, is similar to what America is going through. Where the countries are divided down the line. And doesn't like either party enough, to give them enough power to run the country. So they shift back in fourth. In America, between Democrats and Republicans. In Greece between Republicans and Socialists. And only the people of these countries can figure these things out for themselves.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Partisan Student Loan Fight Moves to Senate: How to have Universal Higher Education



The three topics I'm most interested in and I blog across the board. When it comes to Current Affairs, are education, Crime and Punishment and poverty. Why because they all interrelate and they are three most challenging issues we face as a country. As well as the most important, outside of National Security. If you get a good education in life, go to a good High School. Graduate, go onto a good college and graduate there. Most likely then not, you'll end up avoiding poverty and going to prison. Why because you'll have the skills to make it in life on you're own. Not have to break the law to support yourself, not have to work dead end jobs to support yourself. Not have to work multiple dead on jobs at the same time to support yourself. And not need Public Assistance to support yourself either, why because you have the skills. To take care of yourself, to have a good full time job that covers your bills. Allows you to put money away, raise your family, put your kids through school. And even to enjoy life.

Not enough students are getting a good education in America for various reasons. Which is why around 1-5 Americans live in Poverty and why we have 2M people in prison. The War on Drugs is part of that as well but it gets to a lack of a quality education in America. We use to have one of the best Education Systems in the World, today we are 39th in the World. Not enough Americans have access to Higher Education in America. Even students that are qualified for college and other forms of Higher Learning. But they can't afford it or they are not an athlete or an exceptional student. But yet they are a good enough student to go to college and do well there. This is the number one problem facing our economy, after Economic and Job Growth. Which only means something, if we have the qualified workers to take those jobs. Once they are created, Economic and Job Growth means nothing, with out an educated workforce.

I was watching Author/Journalist Tom Brokaw from NBC News and other outlets. Hopefully you are familiar with him, was on Book TV on C-Span yesterday. And he was arguing that we need to get back to big ideas in America. And stop playing smallball, I agree with him. His big idea was creating more Service Academies, expand the Military Academy System. Which has worked so well in America but include Academies for other fields. For example a Medical and Science Academy to train our doctors and scientists. That was his idea, I like that and I would add an Academy for Law Enforcement, to train our Law Enforcement officers. A Law Academy to train our lawyers, an Education Academy to train our educators. And we could have others, an Engineering Academy would be another and this would work by. People going to the schools would get an education, at lets say 50-75% of what they would pay for State College. But intern would have to work in one of these services for lets say 3-5 years after that. Or they could make it a career.

Creating a Public Service Academy System would be one way to get more students into Higher Education in America. We've had plenty of success with this with the Army and Navy. But we also need to pay for this as well, so not only more qualified students are going to college. And graduating with a good degree that they can use. But are not drowning in debt once they graduate and to do this. We need a Higher Education Payment System. That I'll go into further later on, that would be available to everyone including the poor. Where parents would pay into a plan, that it would be matched, that would go towards their kids Higher Education.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Unemployment Dips to 8.1 Percent, 115k New Jobs: Good and Bad News in the Jobs Report



In February the United States added roughly 250K jobs with unemployment holding steady. The last two months we've created a total of 265K jobs. Just a little more then what we created in February, so Job Growth is definitely down. But Economic Growth is holding steady at a mediocre 2.2% or so. We are not headed back to recession, at least not yet. But we aren't gaining any ground yet either. For the Unemployment Rate to seriously drop and finally get under 8%, a place we haven't been in over three years. We need Economic Growth North of 3%, where we are creating 250-300K jobs per month. Which is what we were doing back in 2006 and parts of 2007. For that to happen, there needs to be enough demand to make that happen. People have to be comfortable enough to spend money and we need enough work to do. Where employers feel the need to hire more workers. The good news is that we have enough work in the country. To make that happen, our Manufacturing Industry continues to grow. But we also have enough work to put our Construction Workers back to work as well. But we just aren't doing that work right now.

Not to try to sound partisan but facts are always good to have. Whether they are good or bad news, as of right now. President Obama has a net job loss of roughly 440K jobs. If just current Job Growth holds, President Obama will have a net job gain by September. With still four months left in his first term, unlike President Bush who had a net job loss. Not just for his entire eight year Presidency but his first four years as well. And President Bush had a much better economy his first four years, especially in 2004. But things started to pick up in late 2003, these are just fact not Partisan Attacks. So for Mitt Romney to look at the April Jobs Report and think this is good news. For him that will lead to him being elected President. President Obama is on pace to create more jobs in his first term then President Bush. As far as a net gain in jobs and President Bush obviously got reelected.

There's both good and bad news from the April Jobs Report. Both economically and politically for President Obama, that he can use to try to push Congress. Especially the Republican House and for his sake and for the economy. He should be pushing them for more Infrastructure Investment, to put our Construction Workers back to work. As well as Tax Relief for Small Business and Manufacturing.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Liza Mundy on the Presidential Race and the Changing Role of Women: Why Female Voters Look like Olympia Snowe Politically



It is true, that is if polls mean anything that Female Voters tend to be more in favor of Big Government. Then men, I can buy that as a man who's not a fan of Big Government but I'm not a fan of Big Government. Across the board which separates me from Rick Santroum and others. Women tend to like Big Government more then men but the like Big Government Progressivism. They like Economic Progressivism more then men but everyday there are more female executives and Small Business. Owners and managers who don't like high taxes and regulations. Don't want to dependent on government and want to live their own lives. Some of these women are Democrats and some of them are Republicans. And these women also tend not to like Big Government Authoritarianism either. They don't like being told what Healthcare they can have by government. And government interfering with how they live their own lives. Which is something the Republican Party still doesn't understand and why pushing. This whole "War on Women" is a mistake and why it will cost them in the General Elections . Why President Obama has such a large lead over Mitt Romney with Female Voters.

I'm not an expert on this and yes there are women in America, who follow the Michelle Bachmann. Line of thinking, if you want to call that thinking, if thats thinking, I would hate to know what ignorance is. Women who tend to be very Conservative on Economic Policy but Authoritarian on Social Issues. Would like to see new restrictions on how Americans live they're own lives. I would have a hard time believing that Michelle Bachmann is the only women in America. That supports Constitutional Amendments to ban pornography and Same Sex Marriage by the Federal Government. Or considers Same Sex Marriage to be the number one threat to National Security. But these women like Michelle Bachmann are in a tiny minority on these issues. At least outside of the Bible Belt. When I think of the politics of Female Voters, I think of Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. My two favorite Female Members of Congress.

20-30 years ago both Sen. Snowe and Sen. Collins would be considered Conservative Republicans. Because they both don't like Big Government, these are both Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms Republicans. Both fans of Ronald Reagan but in today's Religious and Neoconservative Republican Party. They are considered to be Moderate-Liberal, because almost anything to the left of a Neoconservative. Would look Liberal by contrast, Female Voters to me look like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And had the GOP played their cards right, the Female Vote would be up for grabs in 2012.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Boston University: Noam Chomsky on Leftist Disillusionment With Barack Obama & An Uninformed American Populace

Source: Boston University- Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: Boston University: Professor Noam Chomsky on Leftist Disillusionment With Barack Obama & An Uninformed American Populace

As a Liberal Democrat, but in the classic sense (if not real sense) and not today's popular definition of what Progressive is supposed to be, I have my own issues with President Obama, as they relate to social issues, civil liberties, etc. Things like indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs. All things that President Obama seems to be in favor of and hasn't changed from President Bush. If anything has advanced some of President Bush's policies in these key areas. But I can't really claim to be disappointed with President Obama in these areas. Because I didn't vote for then Candidate Obama back in the 2008 Democratic primary. I voted for then Candidate Clinton, even though Bill Richardson was my first choice. But he was out of the race by the time of the Maryland primary. I didn't vote for Senator Obama, because by the way he was running his presidential campaign in the Democratic primaries. He looked to me like the 2008 version of George McGovern, someone who was running way to the left of the country. Social Democrats dream candidate and someone Republicans would have no problem labeling as a Socialist and making that stick.

Senator Obama wasn't running as far to the left of Dennis Kucinich, which is almost impossible to do. Who as it turns out would've been the Far-Left's  dream candidate. But Barack Obama was smart enough to know that if he beats Kucinich to his base, he would win the Democratic nomination. And then moderate in the general election and run as a Moderate Liberal. Which if you look at his core and he does have one, that's where he is on the political spectrum. I call him a Moderate Liberal, because of where he is on social issues. If you're a Liberal, you should have no issues with same-sex marriage. You should hate the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Because you believe in things like civil liberties and freedom of choice. Little annoying things for Neoconservatives and big government statists on the Far-Left. Barack Obama's liberal credentials relate to his views on economic and foreign policy. Where they are solid and where I've tended to agree with the President. He believes in the notion of an Opportunity Society and ending government dependence and things like that. As well as infrastructure investment and renewable energy.

Social Democrats (lets call them) if they are as smart, well-informed and open-minded as they claim to be, would've done more research on Barack Obama in 2008. And have discovered he's not one of them, but shares similar goals, but wouldn't go as far and as fast to solve them. And would've learned Barack is not their guy and they should look at Dennis Kucinich and have backed him instead. They do that, Hillary Clinton probably wins the Democratic nomination and chances are she's President right now. But at least they would've backed their guy. American voters can never credibly blame the person they voted for. You can't even blame slick politicians who run one way and govern another, especially in the information age of new technology. Because everyone has a record who is running for office and if people just did their homework they would know everything they need to know to make good informed political decisions about who to vote for. They way to blame bad politicians and public officials is to fire them after they're in office. Which is what elections are for.