Chicago City Desk: Minister Malcolm X (1963)

Source: PASMA SOBUKWE BRANCH- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“Malcolm X Interview in Chicago City Desk March 17, 1963” 

From  PASMA SOBUKWE BRANCH

“City Desk,” WMAQ-Ch. 5’s local newsmaker interview show launched 57 years ago and folded into the NBC-owned station’s Sunday-morning news program in 1996, goes away completely after this weekend.

The final edition of “City Desk” is set for the 9:30 a.m. half hour on Sunday. Hosted by Mary Ann Ahern and Carol Marin, it will be a retrospective of the program’s run, which featured such panelists as John Chancellor, Len O’Connor, Jim Ruddle, John Dreiske and Dick Kay.”  

From the Chicago Tribune

"March 1963, , Malcolm X on City Desk. Classic Malcolm at a time when he was a key Minister of the Nation of Islam. This is some time before he split with the Nation of Islam." 

Source:Floyd Webb- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X in 1963.

From Floyd Webb

This was an interesting interview, because a group of Chicago and national journalists, who were interviewing Malcolm X, because Malcolm X a clear revolutionary leader for African-Americans, calling for their independence from public assistance and America as a whole. That Africans in America should no longer tolerate bigotry, poverty and anything else that’s holding down Africans in America. That they should no longer tolerate these conditions and that they should stand up and fight back against the establishment that they saw as the problem that was holding them down.

Minister Malcolm was also arguing that African-Americans need to grab their constitutional rights and no longer taken them for granted and expect other Americans to enforce them for them, because in the early 1960s, African-Americans, weren’t getting their constitutional rights enforced equally as Caucasian-Americans.

Here Malcolm X was being interviewed by clear establishment figures, people from the so-called mainstream media, from Chicago, as well as NBC News in this interview. So you had a rebel being interviewed by establishment figures in this interview.

I love Minister Malcolm’s point about the names and the turn Negro with African slaves being given European and in most cases Anglo-Saxon names. And not just being kidnapped and taken from their homes in Africa, but also getting their culture, history and even their names being stripped from them.

Africans still live in America as full-blooded Africans, but having to carry names like Joe Smith and Tom Johnson, even though their family originally had a Bantu, or Zulu first and last name. Depending on what part of Africa that they came from and their ethnic background. I just don’t think these men were prepared to question someone with the intelligence and knowledge of history that Malcolm X was. 

CBS News: Walter Conkrite- Interviewing President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Source:CBS News- interviewing President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“CBS-TV Interview With President John Fitzgerald Kennedy On Sept. 2, 1963”

From President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

In September, 1963, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite sat down with President John F. Kennedy and interviewed him up in Massachusetts, to talk about the issues he was dealing with.

Jack Kennedy, knew the power of TV about as well, or better than anyone in the 1960s and even 1950s. So he probably wanted to do this type of interview and to layout for the country what he was working on and wanted to accomplish. This interview happened fourteen months before the 1964 presidential election. And just a little over two months before he was assassinated and in late 1963.

President Kennedy, had an economy that was weakening and was trying to get a jobs plan through Congress. That included a large tax cut that cut taxes across the board. Including bringing the top rate down from 90 to 70% and the bottom rate from 25 to 20%. And this economic plan contributed to creating the economic boom of the 1960s.

President Kennedy was also dealing with civil rights and making sure that Federal Court orders were being carried out. And that African-American students were able to go to once segregated schools and so-forth.

And this is the time that President Kennedy came out strongly in favor of civil rights and introduced a civil rights bill to Congress. And of course President Kennedy was also dealing with the United States early involvement in the Vietnam Civil War as well.

President Kennedy, had a lot on his plate to deal with in 1963 and it would’ve been nice to see him at least try accomplish all the things that he wanted to do to deal with these issues.

A lot of what President Lyndon Johnson got passed in Congress was finishing off the agenda that President Kennedy put forward and sent to Congress. But was unable to get through the House and Senate. 

Associated Press: Mitt Romney: ''I Don't Want to Raise Taxes''

Source:Associated Press- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) campaigning in Pennsylvania.

"Speaking to supporters in Pennsylvania Friday, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged to not raise taxes on middle-income families." 

From the Associated Press

Again, Mitt Romney back on that same line that President Obama wants to cut and weaken defense,, trying to put the sequester on him. Perhaps not realizing that the President of the United States is not a dictator and we don't have a parliamentary government, where the Prime Minister and sometimes President, essentially gets whatever they want when it comes to the national government budget, 

President Obama can't pass a Federal budget or debt ceiling Extension on his own. Congress passed the sequester in August, 2011 and the President signed it into law. Thats how divided government (good or bad) works. And he negotiated this through a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, not just a divided government but a divided Congress. 

But the thing that struck me as odd about this, was that Mitt was telling that falsehood (lie, really to be straight about it. He was saying this thing again, in front of a military audience, that knows what the sequester is about and how it came into law. You are not going to win a lot of votes in the military, when you consistently say things, that they know are not true.

As far as the tax hikes: Mitt Romney unless he's already removed it because of how unpopular it is has a 200B$ tax hike in his economic plan. 200B$ that was part of the 2009 American Recovery Act, taken out of the economy and put into the hands of the Federal Government, Federal Employees, that Mitt puts down, thats just a fact. The same thing that House Republicans did when they passed their extension of the Bush tax cuts back in August.  

When Governor Romney gets on President Obama for wanting to raise taxes, he's not mentioning that so would he, if he ever became President, its like healthcare, accusing someone of doing the same thing that you did. That's pure hypocrisy.

Governor Romney wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, especially wealthy investors, and large corporations. But he doesn't want to run up the budget deficit. So he's decided that he would repeal the 2009 Economic Recovery Act, which has a 200 billion-dollar middle class tax cut in it, to pay for his economic plan. That's not just a tax hike, but a middle class tax hike every where in the real world. Perhaps Governor Romney should visit that planet when talking to his supporters.

Associated Press: President Obama: 'Rich Getting Richer Won't Help Economy'

Source:Associated Press- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking to his supporters in Bowling Green, Ohio.

"President Barack Obama traveled to the battle ground state of Ohio, telling voters his plan to help the economy is much better suited than his opponents." 

From the Associated Press

What President Obama is talking about here is his opponent Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan. The President is saying that supply-side, trickle-down economics doesn't work. We tried that in the last decade and had two real recessions in that decade. 

The President is arguing what we should do instead is expanding the middle class with things like more infrastructure, tax relief for middle class families, job training for low-income and low-skilled, as well as middle-income and middle-skilled workers, so they can move up in the economy. 

The President is giving Ohio voters a choice: do you want to just cut taxes for the rich and for big corporations, or do you want to empower more Americans to move up in the economy and be able to create their own wealth, with the help of more government investments in the economy. And in about 5 weeks from now, we''ll see which economic vision that Ohio voters choose.

Artist Jennette Brown: Whose Line is it Anyway? Christopher Walken

Source:Artist Jennette Brown- Jeff Davis and Colin Monarchy on Whose Line is it Anyway? Not mine.

Source:The Daily Press

"This is Jeff, a guest on Whose Line, he does a great impression of Christopher Walken. It's hilarious! All ownership and copyright of this video belongs to 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' and ABC Family. No copyright infringement intended."

From Artist Jennette Brown

ABC use to have a show called Whose Line Is It Anyway, the American version of the BBC Whose Line show. And what it was five comedians including the host Drew Carey who would be given scenes and characters to play, but the comedians would have to act out the scenes with no script or lines. The comedians would have to act out the scenes off the top of their heads, almost completely spontaneously.

And they would do scenes like Hoe Down where they would have to do a song off the top of their heads, or Super Hero’s where each person would have this made up Super Hero with a name that no Super Hero, who is sane and sober at least, would have. 

And one comedian would start out with a name and as each comedian would enter the game, the comedian who came before would give the next comedian a name. So let's say Alcoholic Man would introduce let's say Mr. Clutz who would topple to the floor as soon as he’s introduced. And Mr. Clutz would do is act and then introduce the next person and say: “Thank God you are here Scared Shitless!" or something like that.

My favorite skit that they did is probably Weird Newscasters. Especially the two anchors and these two people would makeup the news literally on the spot. And would say something like: “Our lead story tonight, 200 people reported missing or dead as a result of an attack by Killer Tomatoes.” 

And the second anchor with a weird character to play like a news anchor being played by race car driver whose had too much to drink or something. And he or she would say something like: “This just in: alcoholism linked to drunk driving. Shocking I know.” And they would introduce the weatherman who farts every time he speaks or something like that. As well as a sportscaster who falls in love with every women he sees in the audience or something.

My favorite character on this show even though I don’t believe Chris Walken has ever actually physically been on this show before is Chris Walken. Because he’s a great comedian on the spot, who never needs a script to be funny, movies like American Sweethearts, True Romance and his appearances on Saturday Night Live are excellent examples of that. 

And Jeff Davis from Whose Line, does a great impression of him and that’s what makes this show great and how you tell great comedians from good or average comedians. How funny are they when they have to be and when they don’t have a script.

John Aes Nihil: Charles Manson Interview

Source:Aes Nihil Productions- American Family Horror Movies, at least when they're about Charles Manson.

Source:The Daily Press

“MansonBlog.com had the distinct pleasure of spending a day with John Aes-Nihil. John directed (among others) a film called “Manson Family Movies (1984)”. If you haven’t seen it, you should.

Aes-Nihil is an archivist, collector and broker of all things Manson (among many other subjects). His Manson archives alone covers 3 buildings, so we only scratched the surface of this magnificent collection. Today we present you with a small taste of what we saw. If you are looking for a particular item you can contact him through his website.”

From The Manson Family Blog 

“Charles Manson John Allison rare San Quentin Interview taped from television in a (3) part series from 47 Eyewitness News 35 years ago.”

Source:Michaels Backporch- convicted serial murderer Charles Manson being interviewed in 1986.

From Micahels Backporch

This is from a different Charles Manson interview, but the video is not currently available, but I still have the cover photo of it.

Source:Bernard Gibson- convicted serial murderer Charles Manson, being interviewed at San Quentin Prison.

As evil as Charlie Manson might have been or still is and he was clearly and evil man, whose responsible for the murders of a lot of innocent people and even seem to draw pleasure from them, that’s not the whole story about Charlie. You don’t put together a crime family like the Manson Crime Family if you don’t have some leadership ability. That not only draws people to you, but you can make them do things they normally wouldn’t do. Like good middle class teenagers, people who should be in college, going out and murdering innocent people, people who are complete strangers to you. Because you see them as part of some establishment that’s holding down the rest of the country.

Charlie Manson blamed his situation in life, on society and to a certain extent he was correct. Coming from a broken home, never knowing his father, barely knowing his mother, being shipped around as a kid. Doesn’t excuse the fact of all the people he had murdered, but he got off to a real bad start in life. And once he became an adult and got out of prison for the last time in life, he decided that he was going to takeout his frustrations on society, as much as he can for as long as he can. Charlie Manson and his young Baby Boomer soldiers, against the rest of the world.

What we saw from Charlie Manson’s power was not only the ability for him to make people do things they wouldn’t normally do, like things as evil as murdering people, but people who basically fell in love with him. And saw him as a God or Jesus Crisis, people who idealize a murderer. Which is what we saw in this interview. Even though people who are doing life sentences in prison, partially for hooking up with Charlie Manson. Who see him for exactly what he is. A cold-blooded murderer that would manipulate people to do what he wouldn’t do himself.

David Von Pein: ‘ABC News: JFK Assassination As it Happened- 11/22/1963’

Source:ABC News- As It Happened.

Source:The Daily Press

“Two hours of live, as-it’s-happening ABC-TV coverage of the news surrounding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963.

This video begins at approximately 1:50 PM EST (12:50 PM CST in Dallas, Texas, which is where President Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM Central Time).

The very first ABC-TV bulletin concerning the shooting in Dallas is, unfortunately, not included in this YouTube series, but some of the early bulletins are here (before all regular programming was cancelled).

A rerun of “Father Knows Best” was airing on many ABC-TV affiliates when the assassination occurred, and portions of that television show are included in Part 1 of this series.

This ABC news coverage seems quite primitive and antiquated by today’s 21st-century standards, and at times it almost appears as if the newsmen are reporting from somebody’s shabby-looking basement.

But it must also be noted that ABC, in 1963, was definitely the “number three” television network among the trio of TV networks that existed at that time (CBS, NBC, and ABC).

As a footnote to this ABC coverage, I received the following message from Ed Silverman in June 2013… 

From David Von Pein 

“Two hours of live, as-it’s-happening ABC-TV coverage of the news surrounding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963.

This video begins at approximately 1:50 PM EST (12:50 PM CST in Dallas, Texas, which is where President Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM Central Time).

The very first ABC-TV bulletin concerning the shooting in Dallas is, unfortunately, not included in this YouTube series, but some of the early bulletins are here (before all regular programming was cancelled).

A rerun of “Father Knows Best” was airing on many ABC-TV affiliates when the assassination occurred, and portions of that television show are included in Part 1 of this series.

This ABC news coverage seems quite primitive and antiquated by today’s 21st-century standards, and at times it almost appears as if the newsmen are reporting from somebody’s shabby-looking basement.

But it must also be noted that ABC, in 1963, was definitely the “number three” television network among the trio of TV networks that existed at that time (CBS, NBC, and ABC).

As a footnote to this ABC coverage, I received the following message from Ed Silverman in June 2013…  

Source:Britannica- The last ride that John F. Kennedy would ever take.

From Britannica 

ABC News, was such a small operation in the early 1960s. Sort of like the baby sister or baby brother of NBC and CBS News. They didn’t become a major operation at least until the late 1960s or early 70s, when Howard Smith took over as the anchor of the ABC Evening News. And probably not even a major competitor as far as first being in news when it came to the TV networks until the late 70s and early 80s. When Nightline with Ted Koppel came on the air and covered the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

ABC News, won a lot of rewards for their depth coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It made Ted Koppel a star and household name and if you look at this coverage of the JFK assassination, you don’t see a clear anchor of this coverage. It looks more like a news update or something.

When CBS News went on the air, with this story, Walter Cronkite was their number one anchor, broke in right away to report this story. And the same thing with NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, they went their main people their stars. You don’t see that with ABC News.

With what ABC News had to work with back then and again being in third place out of the three networks and being so far back it looked like fifth place, I think they actually did pretty well and we’re on top of the story. They were the so-called CW or My-TV, whatever that is, or even FOX. Being so small that they didn’t even have a news division, or weren’t interested in news at all. FOX, of course now has a news obviously. ABC, was a national TV network back then, but didn’t have the affiliates and ratings that CBS and NBC did. 

History Comes To Life: 'Wendell Willkie (1892-1944)'

Source:History Comes To Life- 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Willkie (Republican, Indiana)

"Willkie about to board plane in 1940 campaign, Willkie waves and boards, Mrs. Willkie boards plane, Willkie working on plane, plane in flight, Willkie looks out window.  1940: FDR campaigning, Mrs. Roosevelt and Herbert Lehman in car with him, long shot same, FDR car passes by. (sound) Willkie campaigning in New Jersey, man marks vote board. 1942: Plane just landed in Cairo, Wendell Willkie, FDR representatives in Cairo out of plane, various shots of Willkie in conversation at the airport, Willkie enters car and drives away. CU Willkie as he receives award for Real Understanding of Americanism (sound). CU Willkie removing hat, CU Willkie." 

From History Comes To Life

I'll go on the record right now and just admit that I'm a big fan of Wendell Willkie to the point that if I was from his generation, or even from the World War II generation, I would probably be a Republican as well back in the 1930s and 40s. He and might match up very well with our center-right, classical liberal (meaning the real liberal) philosophy. 

Wendell Willkie was a cold warrior, he believed in property rights, (both economic and personal) he believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, he even believed in a public safety net for people who truly needed it. 

Wendell also believed in limited government and fiscal responsibility as well and when you look at the 1940 presidential election, it wasn't conservative versus liberal. More like Liberal versus Progressive or Social Democrat, which Wendell Willkie representing the Liberal Republicans and to a certain extent the Conservatives as well and Franklin Roosevelt representing the Progressive Democrats, as well as the Neo-Confederate Democrats, who were latter called Dixiecrats. The 1940s was a very a different time politically and ideologically.

Associated Press: Raw Video- 'Judge Denies Request to Stop Anti-Muslim Trailer'

Source:Associated Press- actress Cindy Lee Garcia filed this lawsuit and loss.

“A judge has denied a request seeking to force YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim film trailer that has been blamed for causing deadly violence in the Muslim World. The actress who filed the lawsuit calls the film ‘degrading’.”

From the Associated Press

If this actress in this movie was misled about this movie that she was in, then she probably has a good case, that she should take to court and sue the makers of this movie over that and be rewarded compensation for that. Assuming she didn’t know that she was going to be part of an Islamaphobic film and I don’t know if she was misled or not. But as far as getting the movie shut down, over that, that simply won’t happen.

We have a First Amendment in this country that protects Freedom of Speech, which movies would clearly come under, because they clearly have speech in them. And when they are in documentary form, they are delivering a message and perhaps intended to inform people about the subject matter that the film is covering.

Seeing speech that you love or hate, is part of sharing and living in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen million people. We can control what we see and hear, but can’t shut people up on our own.

Suing people might be part of the American Way in America, but free speech is clearly the American Way and has to be protected. Whether its peaceful speech, hate speech, accurate speech or inaccurate speech. It’s not the job of government to protect us from what they may see as dangerous speech. We have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

NORML: Eric Altieri: Boston Freedom Rally (2012)

Source:NORML- pro-marijuana legalization rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Boston Freedom Rally 2012 - NORML's Erik Altieri speaking at the 2012 Boston Freedom Rally on September 15th, 2012" 

From NORML 

What we do know about these marijuana legalization initiatives is that the so-called War On Drugs is not nearly popular today, especially with Gen-Xers (my generation) and people who are younger. As well as let's say aging, hippie, Baby Boomers from the 1960s and 70s. 

During the 1970s and 80s when the Nixon Administration and later the Reagan Administration launched major campaigns against illegal narcotics in America, it was popular to be in favor of the so-called War On Drugs. But not with young adults today, which why we might see Americans vote to legalize or decriminalize marijuana in multiple states in 2012.

Center For American Progress: Ian Millhiser: 'The Politicization of the Constitution'

Source:Center For American Progress- with a look at the U.S. Constitution.

"The Center for American Progress' Ian Millhiser, Senior Policy Analyst, Constitutional Policy, describes how conservatives have politicized the U.S. Constitution and offers insight into what our founding document actually says." 

From CAP

There's only one issue that I take with Ian Millhister with his little commentary here. He said that the United States is a democracy and we do things by majority rule. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's basically what he said. 

If America were a pure democracy, we (meaning the government) would do basically do everything by majority rule and there would be no need for a U.S. Supreme Court and even a Federal court system as well, at least as it relates to how our government operates and what it can do for us or to us, just as long as a majority of American voters approves of what the government is doing.

What America is, is a constitutional, liberal democratic republic form of government, meaning that we elect our leaders. But even our elected leaders are sworn to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, which means they can't do things and pass laws simply because they're popular. Everything that government does anywhere in America, has to be constitutional. But it doesn't have to be popular or even democratic.

Associated Press: Warren Levinson- 'Occupy Wall Street: One Year Later'

Source:Associated Press- Pete Dutro used to be one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street.

“To mark the one-year-anniversary of the Occupy movement on September 17th , current and former members talk to the Associated Press about the changes they see in the organization.”

From the Associated Press 

Occupy Wall Street started off as a I guess left-wing social democratic (even though there are Communists who part of OWS) movement a year ago, that was pissed off at Wall Street and corporate America as a whole. And seeing them get bail outs while they saw the rest of the country as they put it got austerity and decided that they were: “Mad as Hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.” Or perhaps even stronger language than that)

OWS was a very focused and fairly disciplined movement, especially for Socialists who aren’t known for discipline or even believing in it. And that’s how they were successful in its first few months: “This is what’s bad, we have the people with us and we need to stop this.”

And then OWS could go about fixing the problems, instead of making them worst and were successful in not only getting attention from the national media, but getting people behind them as well. Even Democrats not so much the leadership, but some Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate who are so far to the Left as they are and also have a hard time seeing the center and perhaps center-left with a telescope, such as OWS. And they even managed to not only communicate what they believe is wrong with the country, as far as the economy, but we’re able to start to put together their own social democratic agenda.

OWS moves from talking about what they don’t like about capitalism and corporate America, to preserving social insurance programs, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what they would do about the “too big to fail banks”, breaking them up or nationalizing them. As well as things like universal higher education, protecting organize labor and debt forgiveness for students and other things.

But now OWS seems to be about complaining about ever society ill that the country seems to be going through. Jump from one problem to another without any real focus or discipline and living up to one of the negative stereotypes that Socialists have. They’ve become like kids who when they get a new toy, they see something else that they want and now have lost all interest in their first toy. They’ve become like children.

That’s how Occupy Wall Street started out, but by the late spring and summer they had already lost whatever momentum they were able to build up from the fall and winter of 2011-12 and started looking more like rioters or anarchists and with all the arrests they started piling up. They were like fireworks that are lighted on July Fourth, that burn out with in minutes. And started piling up arrests at their rallies and events. And once a movement gets to that point, its hard for Americans who unless they are die-hard supporters of you, to take you seriously: “Why should I pay attention to them. They are just some whacked-out fringe: why should I take them seriously.”

And because of this, the Democratic Leadership, has never really gotten behind them. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats understand that there’s a certain responsibility to being part of a major political party. That you can’t afford to look like you are part of a fringe movement, because you are supposed to be the adults in the room.

Right now in America again unless you are a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, they look like some whacked-out Far-Left socialist party, that are champions of big government and high taxes, which hasn’t played well in this country for a long time.

And even worst, OWS looks like anarchists people who are so out of their minds they aren’t capable of having an adult conversation, which is why they are struggling to be taken seriously.Even fringe movements need ties and have a base with reality and how the world works, so they can be as successful as possible. Even if it comes off as stale or old school to their supporters. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Public Resource: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years (1963)

Source:Public Resource-  President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) talking to the network news White House correspondents, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“ARC Identifier 52813 / Local Identifier 306.6613. U.S. Information Agency. (1982 – 10/01/1999) Made possible by a donation from John and Paige Curran.” 

From Public Resource 

Jack Kennedy came to the White House in 1961 with a broad agenda that included civil rights for African-Americans, Federal aid to public education, health insurance for seniors and an economic plan to deal with an economy that was slowly coming out of recession from the late 1950s, that included a deep tax cut. And yet most of his domestic agenda stalled in Congress despite having large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. And spent most of the first two years dealing with foreign policy. With Cuba twice both involving Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and of course the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Kennedy, did have a foreign policy agenda as well and was a tough Liberal Cold Warrior that wanted to open discussions with Russia. But wasn’t prepared to be soft with them, but take them on. And spoke out for liberal democracy not only in America, but in Europe as well, but wasn’t looking for a war with the Soviet Union either.

And in the middle of 1963, finally took a tough stand when it came to civil rights for African-Americans and liberal democracy for them. Who were being discriminated and beaten in the South with the violent beatings that were happening in Alabama and Mississippi.

We’ll never know how successful of a President that Jack Kennedy would’ve made, one of the tragedies of his assassination. But he had all the tools of becoming not just one of the best Liberal Democratic president’s we’ve ever had, but one of the best president’s we’ve ever had as well. Just by what he believed in, but also how he handled the issues that came his way. The Cuban Missile Crisis and finally taking on Civil Rights as well in 1963.

The question is how effective President Kennedy would’ve been how he been able to complete his first term. And he been reelected, he effective he would’ve been at getting his agenda through Congress. Something he wasn’t very successful at in his first two years.

President Kennedy, was very popular when he died I believed, because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and because he was very likable personally. Which are the advantages that President Obama has today. But wasn’t very good at making Congress go along with his agenda based on his personal appeal.

Had President Kennedy completed his first term, he would’ve continued to work on the issues, that he ran on as President. Across the board tax cuts, the health insurance program that later became known as Medicare, Federal Aid to public education, and civil rights. And then the question would’ve been how successful he would’ve been at pushing that agenda through Congress. 

John F. Kennedy: Liberal Party Nomination Speech (1960)

Source:Zencat- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) accepting the 1960 New York Liberal Party nomination for president.

"JFK accepting the Liberal Party nomination in 1960. The last freely Democratically elected president of the 20th century. possibly the last ever.

I acquired this recording from a "public domain" site and present it here as an example of what our shared history is in these united states.

The speech it is in its entirety as an historical record.

As far as I can check the history, from independent transcripts of the event etc. This is the full version and has not been altered.
It is offered here for your consideration.
Make up your own minds."

From Zencat 

“Eight years ago on this occasion, Adlai Stevenson called this quadrennial outburst of affection “that pause in the real Republican occupation known as the ‘Liberal Hour.'” And he added, “It should never be confused,” and he was right, “with any period when Congress is in session.” [Laughter and applause.]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.” [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, “Liberal,” to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a “Liberal,” and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.” 

From the JFK Library

The whole reason why I’m writing about John F. Kennedy’s Liberal Party speech, because he literally defines what it means to be a Liberal in America and I have the full quote and his remarks about Liberal right here in this post.

Left-wingers (who are closeted Socialists) always partially quote JFK’s remarks about Liberal so they can say he was one of them and to argue that this is what Liberals believe and what liberalism is and to advocate for bigger government and a superstate in America. Which is why they always partially quote JFK here and leave out the part about:

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.

“But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.” [Applause.]”

But as JFK said himself being soft and being fiscally irresponsible was not JFK’s vision of Liberal. He was a World War II veteran, a cold warrior, and anticommunist, he didn’t like high deficits and debt, he didn’t think government had a program and tax to solve everyone’s problems for them.

JFK believed that government could help people help themselves. He believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans, he believed in progress. But JFK was a realist and believed in limited government as well. He wasn’t some idealistic, lefty, Hippie who believed that government could create some utopia and paradise for everyone to live in. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Raymond Fisher: 'Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate'

Source:Raymond Fisher-  Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, at California Berkeley, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“American history as it’s usually taught likes to focus on rivalries, and there are many involving big personalities and major historical stakes. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington. These figures are set up to represent the “both sides” we expect of every political question. While the issues are oversimplified (there are always more than two sides and politics isn’t a sport) the figures in question genuinely represented very different perspectives on power and progress.

When it comes to the history of the Civil Rights movement, we are given another such rivalry, between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Their ideas and influence are pitted against each other as though they had shared a debate stage. In fact, the two leaders met only once, during Senate debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “King was stepping out of a news conference,” writes DeNeen L. Brown at The Washington Post, when Malcolm X, dressed in an elegant black overcoat and wearing his signature horn-rimmed glasses, greeted him.” 

From Open Culture 

“Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate” 

From Raymond Fisher

This was the ultimate debate (that never happened in person between Reverend King and Minister Malcolm X) as it related to the civil rights movement and perhaps generally as well, because it involved the two most effective and intelligent spokespeople when it came to civil rights and equal rights. And two of the most effective spokespeople when it came to individual freedom in general.

Before the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and to a certain extent after that, African-Americans didn’t have the same freedom as Caucasian-Americans. Even though they had the same constitutional rights under law as every other American in the country.

African-Americans simply weren’t getting their constitutional rights enforced. Which is exactly what Dr. Martin King and Minister Malcolm X were trying to accomplish. They wanted African-Americans to have the same freedom as any other American in the country, they just had two different approaches.

The MLK approach was to show the country that they were freedom fighters fighting for freedom, but they weren’t trying to destroy the country. Just the system that held them down and we’re going to accomplish it by exercising their constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Assembly.

Malcolm X’s approach was different, that the way to destroy the system, was by any means necessary, even if that means violence. That what they were fighting for which was their own freedom just as the Caucasian community had, should already be there’s. And that the racists should just get-out-of-the-way, or they’ll be run over. That there wasn’t any negotiation, because African-Americans already had the freedom under law and under the Constitution that every other community had in America. Which meant that racist Southern Anglo-Saxon bigots and other racist Caucasians, should either step aside, or they’ll be forcefully removed by the African-American community. 

Associated Press: 'Members of Congress Unite for 9/11'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) at the podium. Left to right: U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (Republican, Virginia) U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (Democrat, California) and U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) in the background.

"Lawmakers from both parties stood shoulder to shoulder to mark the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, ending by singing "God Bless America."   (Sept. 11)" 

From the Associated Press 

"September 11 attacks, also called 9/11 attacks, series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed in 2001 by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States, the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil in U.S. history. The attacks against New York City and Washington, D.C., caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism. Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania (where one of the hijacked planes crashed after the passengers attempted to retake the plane); all 19 terrorists died (see Researcher’s Note: September 11 attacks). Police and fire departments in New York were especially hard-hit: hundreds had rushed to the scene of the attacks, and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed." 

Source:Britannica- attack on the WTC

From Britannica

Good speeches by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) about the events of 9/11, 2001 and how the country came together and is even stronger now. 

Seems like you have a better chance of seeing a bald man with sideburns, then you have of seeing any bipartisanship whatsoever in Congress. But they're showing that they can still unify when the country needs it, like remembering all those innocent Americans that we lost on 9/11. 

NFL Films: NFL 1967- The Story of The New Orleans Saints

Source:Crescent City Sports- the 1967 Saints didn't lack talent.

Source:The Daily Press

“As a kid, I never saw my father happier.

In the fall of 1966, newspapers came in the morning and in the afternoon. Ed Daniels came home with an afternoon paper trumpeting New Orleans as the newest NFL city.

Back then, a season ticket was 15 dollars. Yep, a youth ticket in the end zone, purchased with an adult ticket, was 15 bucks.

A lot of kids got to see a lot of Saints football. Like me, they were hooked for a lifetime.

For the initial wave of Saints fans, the 1967 team will always have a special place.”

From Crescent City Sports 

“1967 Saints in the beginning”

Source:Shark Throwback- literally one of the first FG attempts in New Orleans Saints history.

From Shark Throwback 

The New Orleans Saints early on in its history looked like a division 2 minor league club of an NFL Franchise. They looked like a not ready for prime time operation, with an owner who had nothing to do with pro football before New Orleans. With a general manager who had just as little or as much pro football experience as his boss. With a head coach that literally came from the minor leagues, from a franchise in Richmond or Norfolk, Virginia. Because they were so cheap and so minor league, they were awful for their first ten years or so.

The Saints weren’t even in playoff contention until 1978, when they were 7-9 and 8-8 in 78 and 79. The Saints are remembered for not even having a winning season in their first twenty seasons. (1967-86) When general manager Jim Finks and head coach Jim Mora came in 1986, owner Tom Benson a few years before that, things started changing in New Orleans in the mid 1980s. Bum Phillips made them somewhat competitive in the early 1980s, after another 2-14 season in 1980. But they were finally putting something together in the late 70s and since these are the New Orleans Saints, they weren’t able to build on that. Going from 8-8 in 1979 to 2-14 in 1980.

Archie Manning of course the father of two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks in Peyton and Eli Manning, is probably the best quarterback in Saints history, at least before Drew Brees arrived in 2006. Played eleven seasons in New Orleans 1971-81 and was a Pro Bowler there. Never played on a winning team in New Orleans, got close a couple of times in the 1970s, but never played for a winner. And this franchise back then had their share of Pro Bowlers, like WR Danny Abramowicz, RB Chuck Muncie, Jim Taylor, Paul Hornung, and Munice would move on and have a good career with the San Diego Chargers.

The Saints also had WR Roy Jefferson who again would move on and have a good career with the Washington Redskins. As well as WR John Gilliam who would move on and have a good career with the Minnesota Vikings. Notice where I’m going with this: the Saints would draft good players and then trade them away. Except for Archie Manning because they didn’t want to pay their other talent. One thing I don’t understand about the Saints of this era, is their fans their management is pretty easy to understand.

The Saints were simply cheap and not willing to invest the resources to build a long-term winner that could compete in the National Football Conference. Even though they always had the fan base that would allow them to win in Southern Louisiana and Southwestern Mississippi and perhaps the State of Louisiana as a whole. But their fans have been very loyal to the Saints for this whole time and really love football. 

President Barack Obama: Vice President Joe Biden: Democratic National Convention Speech

Source:President Barack Obama- Vice President Joe Biden: speaking at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

"Vice President Joe Biden's Remarks at the 2012 Democratic National Convention - Full Speech"

From President Barack Obama

What Vice President Joe Biden did tonight was give Americans a better idea of who he is and where he comes from. And why he connects so well with middle class Americans, because of who he is and where he comes from, because that's where he comes from, that's what he's been part of most if not his entire life. You can even make a case that as a young that Joe Biden came from a low-income family, with his father having to leave him with the rest of his kids in Scranton, Pennsylvania. While his father left for Delaware to find better work which is what he did and how Joe Biden got to Delaware.

Vice President Biden deserves to be Vice President of the United States, despite his bad habit of speaking his mind, which yes in politics can be a bad habit. And why the Vice President will be such a huge asset for the President in Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and even Indiana. If the Obama/Biden Campaign decides to make a play there, which is a possibility especially if they hold their lead in Ohio, where they are still leading.Vice President Biden not only did the job of laying out why the Obama/Biden Administration is good for the middle class and what kind of President his only boss is.

What the Vice President did tonight was to lay out what the situation was when he and the President came to office in January, 2009, what they were up against and how they went about addressing the issues they faced, with both the banking and auto industries collapsing and what they had to do to save those industries that are so vital to the economy. Which without we would be another 1-2M jobs in the hole.

And what they had to do stop the fall of the Great Recession, to buy the country some time so they could move towards an economic recovery. And what they did working with Congress, to not only put a floor on the Great Recession and how to get the economy going again with economic and job growth which is what the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act was about, where they got almost no help from Congressional Republicans to pass. Just three Northeastern Republican Senators voted for it.

The Vice President laid out how he and the President went about making the decisions to deal with the problems they faced. And how President Obama went about making the decisions that he did and how we are better off economically but of course not where we want to be. And why had we did what Mitt Romney was calling for us to do back then, which is let the auto industry go under and what they would do now.

President Barack Obama: President Bill Clinton: 2012 Democratic National Convention Speech

Source:President Barack Obama- William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001_

"President Bill Clinton's Remarks at the 2012 Democratic National Convention - Full Speech"

Source:President Barack Obama

It seems to me that President Bill Clinton had a couple of tasks last night as probably the most popular American politician in America, current or former:

One, to make sure Democrats know how important it is to get-out-the-vote for President Obama. To do one thing vote themselves, but also to get people out to vote. Democrats who are mainly disappointed with President Obama, the more so-called Progressive Democrats (or social democratic Democrats), who thought they are actually getting a Socialist as the Republican Party claims that Barack Obama is. And instead has gotten someone a lot more mainstream than that. 

The message last night was, not voting for President Obama in 2012 is unacceptable, that the United States can't afford a Romney/Ryan Administration with a Tea Party Congress. That there's no choice here. The Obama Administration is hundred times better than the Republican Party could offer in 2012 and that they have to vote and work for the President, to prevent the Tea Party from getting the entire Federal Government.  

Another of President Clinton's tax last night, being to layout exactly why the President is better than Mitt Romney, that four years is simply not enough time to fix all of the problems that the Bush Administration left for the Obama Administration. And to layout exactly where we've made progress as a country and that if reelected, things are only going to get better.

The other task that I believe President Clinton had last night was to layout for Independent voters, where again Bill Clinton is popular with them as well, why the Obama Administration is so much better than any Romney Administration can ever dream of coming up with. And he did that in a couple of areas:

One, on taxes that if you vote for the President, your taxes aren't going to go up. But if you vote for Mitt Romney, he has a 200B$ tax hike that was part of the 2009 Recovery Act, those tax cuts disappear under the Romney/Ryan Plan. 

In the other area as it relates to the Affordable Care Act, that how much money that the people and hospitals are saving as of right now.  With health insurers being required to spend 85% of the money they collect on actual health insurance. And that no one will ever again have to worry about losing their health insurance, because they actually need it.

Another line that I believe was powerful that President Clinton had, was when it come to jobs. For the last twenty-nine months we've created 4.5M jobs net in the private sector. Whereas the public sector across the board has lost jobs. Another example of why the socialist argument doesn't fly. 

Bill Clinton was successful across the board, explaining how President Obama has been successful, how large the problems are and that they simply can't all get solved in four years or less. And where and how we are making progress and why what we are doing now, beats the hell out of anything that the Republican Party has to offer right now.