The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Leathered Life: Video: Sexy Women in Leather Jeans


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Love Lena, the beautiful baby-face adorable curvy brunette in this video. To me at least she's the top model at this web site, I guess called Leathered Life. Sarah, very beautiful and cute, but sort of has an average body and none of the other models in this video got much of my attention. But Lena is pretty special and a goddess in black leather jeans and looks great in those jeans with boots as well. And I just wish this was more footage of her and that she did other projects.

Leather jeans at least on women, are a lot more popular in Europe than in America. American women love skinny denim jeans and even skin-tight skinny denim jeans. But if they wear leather pants at all, they tend to be like dress slacks or leggings. Leather jeans outside of biker and hard rock culture, are not that popular in America. Leathered Life and the company Miss Sixty that makes leather and denim jeans are the exception to that. But leather jeans for men and women are pretty popular in Europe.


Heritage Foundation: Evan Sayet- "How Modern Liberals Think": The Differences Between Liberals & Socialists


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

As an actual Liberal myself and not someone who just calls myself a Liberal, but someone who actually understands liberalism and not someone whose called a Liberal by people who couldn’t tell the difference between liberalism and communism, which a lot of partisan right-wingers aren’t able to do today, as if they couldn’t tell the difference a whale and an ant, I go out of my when I can to explain the differences between liberalism classical or modern and socialism or Anarchism.  

Because todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’ which is a term that I do not like. Its is mixed in socialism as it relates to the economy, with anarchism as it relates to law enforcement, national security crime and punishment, terrorism etc. And paternalism when it comes to personal choice issues. Like how we can communicate with each other, political correctness, what we can eat and so forth. But only tend to be actually Liberals when it comes to civil liberties, but that "government has a protective role, prohibition even". And they’ve added tobacco, junk food, soft drinks to their list of things that they would like to be outlawed, or seriously regulated and taxed in the United States.
The people who I described as ‘Modern-Liberals’, are not actually Liberals. But perhaps European Social Democrats would probably the be most correct way to describe them. Even though they tend to like to be called Progressives. But they are way to the Left of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman, perhaps even Henry Wallace and certainly Lyndon Johnson. All of these men all had a healthy skepticism about the role of government in our lives and understood the limits of what government could do for us.  
Today’s Progressives (I call them that for now until I find a better term) do not seem to have a healthy skepticism about what government can do for people. Except as it relates to civil liberties and perhaps the War on Drugs. And the men I described believe in the role of authority, not to run our lives, but to protect us from people who would do us harm. Criminals, foreign invaders, terrorists to use as examples. This seems to be the only area that todays Progressives seem to be skeptical about governmental power in our lives and that it should be limited.
The easiest way to probably label me politically would probably be to call me a Classical-Liberal. But unless that means you are talking about someone like a Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Democrat up until the New Deal came around in the 1930s and then saw the Democratic Party moving in more of a socialist direction and then left the Democratic Party to run for President as a Republican in 1940. Or Jack Kennedy, I do not like the term Classical Liberal to describe my politics. Because the term classical-Liberal tends to be used to describe Libertarians. 
And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m not anti-government, just anti-big government both as it relates to economic policy, but also personal issues. And I do not want government trying to run our lives for us. So I just prefer the term Liberal or Liberal Democrat even, which I Certainly am to describe my politics. Not in the classical or modern sense, but in the real sense. As someone who believes in Liberal-Democracy, individual freedom both economic and personal. To go with individual responsibility.

The basic difference between Liberals and todays Progressives has to do with the role of government . Todays Progressives simply want a lot more of it especially at the Federal level and want less personal choice. Because they tend to see it as dangerous and that "people with a lot of freedom will make more mistakes". Where Liberals again believe in individual freedom both economic and personal to go with a quality education and opportunity for all. To be successful in life and then be held personally responsible for what we do with our own lives.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Mal Partisan: Video: O.A.R.: Liberalism, the Philosophy of Individual Rights & Freedom

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m a Liberal and when I hear the term ‘Modern Liberal’ today it makes me a little angry. Because today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ would be called Socialists in any other country. Because they have a collectivist view of society and believe that government should always be looking out for the society as a whole, even protecting people from themselves. Both an economic and personal point of view, instead of allowing the individual to make their own decisions. Today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ are really collectivists or Democratic Statists if that makes any sense. Instead of Liberals or perhaps even Progressives.


When people hear the term Classical Liberal and they are pretty familiar with American politics, they tend to think of Libertarians, but the problem with that is that Libertarians tend to be anti-state and anti-government really all together. Liberals aren’t anti-government or even anti-Federal Government, but we are anti-big-government. We don’t want government trying to manage our own lives for us and invading our privacy. We want government doing the things that we can’t do for ourselves. And that isn’t practically everything for us and it is not practically nothing either.
If you read the Far-Left or what are called Progressive blogs and publications today and I read them online everyday, they have a role for government to do practically everything for us. They come short as far as nationalizing the entire economy, but would nationalize some industries and nationalize some things that state and local governments do as well. But liberalism or classical liberalism is not about a big state. But having a liberal amount of freedom as well as responsibility for the individual. 
Liberalism is a very pragmatic and mainstream political philosophy especially in America. Even though it would be viewed as pretty radical in most of the rest of the world. Canada, Germany and Switzerland would be exceptions. But it is about defending and expanding freedom for the individual and seeing that we all have freedom over our own lives until we hurt innocent people and that is when our freedom would be taken away. But that all of us have the opportunities that we need to live in freedom. Creating an opportunity society for everyone.
Classical Liberal
Classical Liberal

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The History TV: Video: Thomas Jefferson American Republic

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, September, 2013

There is a debate in the United States about what is America according to our own Constitution. Are we a republic or a democracy, the fact is we are both, but then why are we both and how are we both. A republic is not necessarily democratic or authoritarian, but it is a republican form of government, small r. Where the people are governed by civilians for the most part, not by the military or a monarchy or religious leaders. But you can have democratic republics and you can have authoritarian republics. 

America is a democratic republic, China is a communist republic to use as examples. A lot of times when people tend to think of democracy, they automatically think of voting the right to vote and majority rule. But the fact is that is only one aspect of democracy. Democracy even depending on what type of democracy, what you are talking about is about freedom and people having freedom over their daily lives and not being harassed by government because they are seen as enemies of the state like in Syria, Egypt or Iran.
America is a federal republic which means we have a federal government as well as state and local governments. Rather than one big government that essentially runs the entire country which is common in authoritarian states. But even at least to a certain extents in big government social democracies. Where a lot of power is centralized with the national government. America is a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where not everything is done by majority rule. Elections for the most part yes, but where we are governed by a large extent by a Constitution with three branches in the Federal Government. 
As well as our state and local governments that have responsibility for seeing that our Constitution is equally enforced. Where we all have constitutional rights that are supposed to be equally enforced. So we can’t lose our constitutional rights just because they may seem unpopular or get in the way with whatever the current party in power has planned for the country.

That is what Thomas Jefferson and the other Liberal Democrats who are our founding fathers created more than two-hundred and thirty years ago. A federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy that comes with a lot of individual freedom. Set responsibilities and authorities for government, but where their number one responsibility is to protect our freedom and constitutional rights equally under law.


Saturday, September 27, 2014

Nido History: Video: The Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist Debate

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I like what the guy said in the video. That we have a federalist form of government, but where the Federal Government is part of that system, but not the only government. That we don’t have a unitary government that is common in Britain, Egypt and perhaps Russia. Where so much power is centralized with one central authority. And you have states or provinces, but really only in name only, but not without much authority over their own affairs.

In the American form of government the Federal Government is obviously part of that. But our states and localities are real as well with real power over their own affairs. With the ability to govern themselves, with the Feds being able to aid with federal funding. But the Federal Government is mainly there to handle national affairs. Like national security, foreign policy, terrorism, interstate crimes, regulating interstate commerce. 
Interstate infrastructure would be another good role for the Federal Government, but where the states have the authority to manage what happens inside their own borders just as long as they are within the United States Constitution. With the Federal Government handling the issues that effect the whole country like as it deals with interstate crime and terrorism. And interstate commerce.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Cletus Hunnicutt: 1972 Year in Review


Source: Cletus Hunnicutt-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

1972 was a great year, well for my family anyway, because it was the year that my brother Alex, who won't go nameless, was born. And what a year to be born in and even on this day being in the middle of the Vietnam War, anti-war movement, Watergate, the 1972 presidential election between George McGovern and Richard Nixon, a year of disaster movies like Skyjacked, The Poseidon Adventure. Two great movies, Skyjacked with Charlton Heston and many other great actors and The Poseidon Adventure with Gene Hackman and many other great actors as well.

The 1970s was an interesting time to begin with. The whole decade, there didn't seem to be one slow year in the whole decade. We were either at war, in recession, or going through one political turmoil after another. So my brother didn't pick a dull year to be born in and it was a great time to be alive of you really wanted to be living will all the changes in culture with all the great movies and music and sports. Awful decade as far as the economy and perhaps people's quality of life. But a great time to be alive if you could afford it.
Cletus Hunnicutt: 1972 Year in Review




Keith Hughes: US Federalism For Dummies- American Government Review


Source: Keith Hughes-
Source: This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Federalism for dummies or for people who aren’t capable of learning anything important or staying awake unless the lesson is given in an MTV like format especially in our valley pop culture world. But Keith Hughes does a very good and accurate job of describing what Federalism is in his video. Any real Liberal or Conservative should be a Federalist or at least respect Federalism, especially if they are in state government or a state politician. Or even a U.S. Senator in Congress representing their state in Congress. 

Because Federalism is about allowing for the states to managed their own affairs and telling the Federal Government to get out-of-the-way that "even though you are the most powerful government in the country, you are not the only government in the country and that the states and localities have responsibilities and powers and people to serve as well so they should be allowed to do so". I’m a Federalist, but a Liberal Federalist in the classical sense that I believe the states should be able to manage their own affairs, just as long as they are within the United States Constitution. 
Meaning they are serving their people equally and and not discriminating against their residents based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality. And that they aren’t trying to start their own military or create their own currency. I’m not anti-government or even anti-Federal Government. It’s just that in a country of three-hundred and ten million people with fifty states that is in between, two oceans, I mean America is a huge country in many ways, plus with all the political diversity that we have, that you must have a limited not small, but limited Federal Government to only conduct the affairs that effect the country. 
Like national security, foreign policy, terrorism, interstate crimes, interstate commerce, but that the states and localities should be able to conduct the affairs that they have responsibility and the knowledge for. Like education, health care, public housing, public assistance. And that the Federal Government can come in to assist and to see that everyone is being treated fairly. But not try to run the public services for each state on their own as if they have all the power.
Federalism or limited government is not about anti-government or small government. At least from a liberal perspective, but that in a liberal democracy as huge as America is, you don’t want to centralize so much power in one authority because of course absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you want the state, locals and more important people to have the power to be able to manage their own affairs as well.
Keith Hughes: US Federalism For Dummies- American Government Review

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Bel Jim: Video: Carol Vorderman, Tight Top & Tight Denim Jeans


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Carol Vorderman is this very sexy beautiful British women who is like fifty-four years old now. But probably looks and acts like a women in her mid thirties or around forty. She is a celebrity talk show and game show host in Britain, or at least was one at one point. Not sure what she is doing now, but she is very popular in Britain and pretty popular internationally for her physical appearance. The way she looks and the way she presents herself. 

She is known for short tight tops and wearing skin-tight denim and leather jeans as well. And she wears boots with them and wears these tight sexy outfits on her shows and when she's out in public a lot. Haven't seen many women fill out a pear of classic Levis tight skinny jeans better than Carol Vorderman and if she's doesn't get a guys attention in those outfits, not many other women will. And she is a pleasure to check out.


Unity and Diversity: The European Federation- An Introduction to the Nation States: A Federal Union of Europe?




A European superstate going forward makes very good sense for Europe for several reasons. Economically at least for the next ten years or so, would have the largest or second largest economy in the world. Either Europe or America until China passes them, as well as being a developed country of around 400M people or so. Depending on how they drew the map of their United Federation, that would replace the European Union. 

The EU is essentially the United Nations of Europe, but a lot more competent and relevant. It would also makes sense for Europe in foreign policy as well as national security and in the War on Terror. Because they would have a large enough military and law enforcement to defend the country that would replace NATO. And a unified foreign policy so their message would be clear. They already have an executive which is what they call a Commission. Their version of an Administration, which is what America, Mexico , Russia and several other Federal Republics have. 

Basically an executive branch with a President and Ministers and they already have a legislative branch a Parliament, as well as judicial branch. Europe has already been down the road of becoming a superstate for about sixty years now. But haven't gone completely forward with it. Most of Europe at least West of Russia and the other Slavic republics, speak English at least as a second language. And the Euro States could still operate in their native languages, but the Federal Government would operate in English so the whole country could communicate with each other. But of course a European Superstate would be a major challenge with all of the national and ethnic pride in Europe. Which is probably the main reason why this has never happened before. 

There a lot of questions that would have to be solved before a European State could ever happen. How would the map be drawn, the United Kingdom would never want to be part of this. Scandinavia is basically a country of its own with a lot of land, almost the size of mainland Europe West of the Slavic states. Thats very wealthy and energy independent that could defend themselves. The Slavic states aren't ready politically or economically and all have questionable human rights records. 

And I doubt Europe would want the Slavic states and of course the Russian Federation would never be part of Europe. They are an economic and military superpower waiting to happen on their own and can get their on their own within 10-20 years they will be a major rival to not only Europe but the United States as well. The Balkans and Turkey, similar issues as the Slavic republics. And Turkey is more part of the Middle East anyway than Europe and the Caucus states, again similar issues as the Slavic states. But a Western European Union as one Federal Union, would be the next superpower in the world. 

So a European Map to me would look like as far West as Portugal and going as far East as Italy in the South. And then as far West as Belgium in the North, big state to Germany or maybe Poland in the North. Making Europe a very large country physically about the size of Mexico but with about 400M people huge population. The other questions have to get to national and ethnic pride, the role of the Federal Government and what would it do. Which is why I believe they would have to have a federal system. And not a big centralize central government. 

Giving the State Governments a lot of authority in how to run their States, on most economic and social issues. But where each State would have to comply with the Federal Constitution. Similar to America and where Brussels the capital of Europe would be responsible. For managing the currency, foreign trade, immigration policy, energy policy, foreign policy, national security and law enforcement. And perhaps setting national standards in the other areas but not running them. So each State would know they would still have plenty of authority to run their State. But where they would be economically, and physically secure with the Federal Government. 

A United Federation of Europe as a Federal Republic makes a lot of sense in several areas. Especially with the emergence of China, India, Russia, Brazil and even Mexico. This would make it much easier for Europe to take care of themselves in several areas. But national and ethnic pride is what's holding this union from happening. 




Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Total Tight Jeans: Video: Amanda in Tight Black Levis Denim Jeans


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The second time I've seen this women named Amanda in her classic black Levis. The problem I have with this video, is that it is forty-seconds. But even in that short amount of time you see beautiful sexy curvy women looking great in black Levis. Women know men very well as far as what men like especially when it comes to women. And this video is a perfect example of that, with this very sexy women in her classic Levis with the great body.

Seeing a women like this makes me want to get down on my knees and thank God I'm a man. And keep in mind, I'm an Agnostic, but seeing a women like this could make a man rethink his religious affiliation. Could bring to sight to a blind man and perhaps even change a gay man. And get him to thinking "OMG! What have I've been missing all of these years? A perfect women physically where the perfect Levis jeans. Not much more than a guy can ask for. 




CDC's Worst Nightmare: Video: Inside SuperMax

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

For me at least it is not a question of whether we need super max prisons or not. The answer is obvious of course we do with all of the violent inmates and criminals that we have and in a lot of cases inmates that are so violent and lack conscience so much that they can’t control their violent behavior. And even enjoy hurting people so of course we need institutions to deal with these people.

The question at least for me is how should we deal with these inmates. The status-quo would be do what we are doing as a country in most cases. Which is to warehouse them and hope they do not get worst and that these institutions the staff can deal with these people, or try to improve their behavior or give them an out from their destructive behavior. Incentive for them to improve their lives in prison in the time that they do. 

Rehabilitation so these inmates are easier to manage while in prison, but also for the inmates who get out an opportunity for them to be successful in prison so they can be successful on the outside and never have to come back to prison and based on the super max prisons that we have, I also believe the answer to this question is obvious as well. With how hard these inmates are to manage and how violent they still are while in these prisons.

That even super max prisons with the increase in security need to be institutions where inmates have opportunities to improve themselves. If for no other reason so they can be transferred to a regular maximum security prison. And have the opportunity to get better rehabilitated with better educational and work opportunities, so they can be productive, especially if they have a release date.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Robert Carter: Sexy Women in Tight Denim Jeans Slideshow


Source: Robert Carter-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Love the women in the Levis jeans especially. I first saw her on a web site back in like late 2009 called something to the affect of, Girls in Denim Jeans, something like that. She's called Sexy Cassandra, I doubt that is her real name. I mean seriously, who would name their daughter Sexy as her first name. I mean what sober sane person would do that, unless you're raising your daughter to be a porn star. Perhaps you're a porn king or pimp or something. I've seen several photos of Cassandra in her classic Levis. And she looks like a goddess in them and has a real nice body and proud of it and proud to show it. A real sexy women to me at least who takes care of herself with a real nice body. Doesn't starve herself, or unable to fill herself up to the point of obesity. But a sexy women who takes care of herself and proud of her body to the point that she wants the world to see it.
Robert Carter: Girls in Tight Denim Jeans Slideshow



Euro News: Jose Manuel Barroso Calls For a Federation of States: What a Federal Union of Europe Could Look Like


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

Before I layout what a Federal Union of Europe which I’m guessing this new European superstate would like and what they would need to do, first I’ll tell you what I believe the borders of the country would look like. It wouldn’t be the entire European/Eurasian continent. Going from lets say Belgium all the way over to the Caucus States and Turkey and Middle East. 


Because the United Kingdom would probably never want to be part of this because of its history and the fact they are a monarchy and do very well as a power by themselves. You would probably be talking about a country going from Belgium in the Northwest with Brussels being the capital of this new Federalist Republic and I say Federalist for a reason which I’ll get into later. 
It would range from Belgium in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast. To Portugal in the Southwest to Italy in the Southeast with the former Soviet Union Slavic states in Eurasia out of this new country, as well as the former Yugoslavia. As well as Scandinavia which physically is about the size of continental Western Europe anyway. Out of this Federalist Republic as well.
So we would be talking about a huge new country physically about half the size of the continental United States. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50 million more people who would be either the new largest economy in the world or right there with the United States. That would also be military and diplomatic, as well as political power because this new country would replace NATO with a President and executive branch now controlling this military. 
This new Europe could compete with anyone in the world economically and everything else that would be a leader in some of these areas as well. That would also be a democracy again if this was done right and set up successfully which is just as important as the idea of a Federalist Republic of Europe getting it right. Similar to how the United States of America was set up in the late 1700s.
So how would a Federalist Union of Europe look like, somewhere between 27-30 states. Federal capital in Brussels and probably similar to the United States that it would have checks and balances, separation of branches simply because of the fact that each state in the union use to be an independent country so they would want their own autonomy over their domestic affairs, but also so the big states in the union like Germany, France and Italy to use as examples do not control most of the political power in Brussels. 
So you would have an executive branch like the commission which is called administration in America. With a President at the head with several different cabinet level ministries. But with a legislative branch that would probably be Bicameral Assembly or Congress, or Parliament so the smaller states as well as the people are well represented as well. You would have some type of Federal assembly. With a lower House and an upper house called the Senate or council. The lower House would represent Federal House districts and the Senate would represent the states. 
This new assembly similar to how Congress works in America would be able to write and pass their own legislation. In other words write laws with the President getting veto and signing power over them. And the assembly would have to pass the same laws before it would go to the president. The House and Senate would have to conference and pass the same law before it is sent to the President. The President as head of the commission would get to send legislation to the assembly as well as veto or sign assembly legislation.

You would then need a Federal judicial branch that would judge the constitutionality of laws that are passed at all levels. As well as handle civil disputes including a high court. As well as criminal cases that the commission prosecutes which again is similar to how America and a lot of other Western democracies function. The difference being the Europe would be more Federalist with more power going to the states over their own affairs. So Europe probably wouldn’t be a social democracy with so much power centralized with the central government. Because states rights because of the fact these states use to be countries would be highly respected.
Because of all the cultural, ethnic, and national tensions like with creating a national language, Europe would have to be Federalist with the states having autonomy over their domestic affairs. With a lot of power going to the governors and state legislatures. So these states feel well represented in Europe and feel that this new powerful country is home for them and being able to live in their native state and speak their native language. But having a Federal language which would probably be English so the Federal Government could do its business, but also so Europeans of different ethnic backgrounds could communicate with each other.

Monday, September 22, 2014

STV News: Video: Scotland Tonight: Rona Dougall Interviewing Laurie Clark & Peter Hughes: How Would Independence Affect the Prospects of Business

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, August, 2013

Perhaps the future of the United Kingdom should be a federalist one where the states or republics in Britain. England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would be able to handle their own domestic affairs. Have their own state or provincial governments and handle their own education, law enforcement, regulatory system, social welfare systems. The things that the states in America do or provinces in other developed democracies do. 


But where the national government in London handles the things that only national governments should be doing. Like the currency, foreign affairs, national security etc. Where the English, Scotts, Welch and Irish feel closer to the U.K. and feel British because they have a large say in what happens in their daily lives in the places that they live. With a federalist system it wouldn't be top down with big government thinking it knows best for everyone. 
Instead the states and localities would be able to handle the issues that they see and are on top of live with everyday. With the national government handling the things that countries need to have done at the national level. Like interstate commerce, interstate crime, foreign policy, the national economy, taxation, but where the states and localities could have their own tax revenue to pay for the operations of their own governments.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic Nomination Speech: New Democrats Take Power in the Democratic Party


Source: Clinton Foundation- Governor Bill Clinton, D, Ark-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

In 1992 when the Democratic Party nominated Bill Clinton for President, the Democratic Party completed the transition it started in the mid 1980s after losing the 1984 presidential election in another landslide similar to 1984 and the third landslide loss they had at the presidential level since 1972 and after the 1984 landslide loss. A coalition of Democrats who by the time Bill Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President in 1992 were called New Democrats who aren’t Moderate Democrats, but Liberal Democrats, but not in the stereotypical ways that Liberals tend to get stereotyped as today.  
But Liberal Democrats who weren’t pro-government, but not anti-government either, but Democrats who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Not use government to try to managed Americans lives, but empower people so they can do that for themselves. Which is very different from the way the Democratic Party was prior to 1985 and how they were seen.
I believe the biggest legacy that Bill Clinton had as President of the United States and his political career in general was how he changed the Democratic Party and moved the Democratic Party. Changing it from a party that was at least as seen and in some cases with the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. As a anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-success, anti-military, ant-religious, anti-American even party. To a party that became in favor of all of those things, but wanted them to be used in a responsible way. 
Didn’t want people to be able to force their values on the rest of the country that didn’t agree with them especially through law. Wanted all Americans to have a good opportunity to be successful in America instead of a select few being able to control most of the wealth in America. Who weren’t anti-military and didn’t believe America should or could police the world, but protect America. That was pro-law-enforcement but also respected civil liberties and personal freedom as well.
The New Democratic wave in the Democratic Party really started in 1976 with the Democratic Party nominating Jimmy Carter for President. And how President Carter moved the country as President on economic and foreign policy. By taking the position that the country didn’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t do everything for everybody. That there was a limit to what government could do for the people who people themselves needed more power and freedom to be able to take care of themselves and that America also needed to be strong at home as well as abroad. 
One problem with Jimmy Carter is that he didn’t get reelected and as a result the Democratic Party in the early 1980s went back to the Social Democratic Party that was at least seen as against those things I’ve already mentioned. And seem to have a new tax increase or government program for all of the country's problems. And what Bill Clinton did in 1992 was move the party back to what Jimmy Carter started in 1976 and was able to move the party forward because he got reelected in 1996.
I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit as it relates to the Democratic Party especially because he essentially saved the Democratic Party and kept it as a national party that remained competitive at the presidential level. And thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama the Democratic Party wins back Congress in 2006 and have retained control of the Senate since 2007 even though they lost the House in 2010 and the Democratic Party has been able to do these things because they are no longer seen as a Far-left Social Democratic Party. 

But instead a Liberal Democratic Party that in a lot of these areas are now beating the Republican Party. And all of this started with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and went full circle with Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And that trend has continued ever since with McGovernites the Social Democrats in the Democratic Party now finally fighting back to try to take back the power they had in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 70s.
Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic Nomination For President Speech

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Hoover Institution: Video: Peter Robinson Interviewing James Pierson: "The Rise and Fall of Liberalism": Actually Liberalism is Alive and Well

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, May, 2013

Again I separate Progressivism from liberalism and the progressivism From Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century all the way up through the 1950s up until John F. Kennedy is progressivism in it’s best form and classical form and I would argue in it’s only form. And the so-called Progressives of today that are part of the New-Left that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response in favor of the civil-rights movement and the Great Society and of course against the Vietnam War, is a much different and more leftist movement. 

People who tend to be against authority all together as it relates to law enforcement and national security and this movement got behind George McGovern for President in 1972 and Senator McGovern ran with them and lost in a landslide as a result. So these are people who are called Progressives today or ‘Modern-Liberals’, (a term I hate) but they aren’t either and I tend to call them Social Democrats or McGovern Democrats, but they aren’t liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense or any sense at least from my perspective because they are so far to the left on economic policy and so anti-authority and rule of law when it comes to law enforcement and national security.
One of the reasons why the death of President Kennedy was so tragic was for both political and ideological reasons from a Liberal’s perspective because the 1960s was the decade that brought so much economic as well as personal freedom to so many new Americans. With the tax cuts of the early 1960s and the civil-rights laws of the mid and late 1960s. And had Jack Kennedy survived and then been reelected in 1964 which of course we’ll never know, we probably are not involved in Vietnam the way we were. 
At least not invading the country and President Kennedy probably moves much more cautiously in Vietnam and we probably would’ve played a more of a supportive role there and not invading North Vietnam. And trying to wipeout the Communists on our own. So the Democratic South could govern the country. But of course we’ll never know this. The 1960s was a great time for real Liberals not the New-Left because of the cultural revolution that brought so much freedom to new Americans as well as the economic freedom that came in that decade. But by the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the New-Left it was a bad time for the Democratic Party.
Both sides of the American political spectrum have their centers and their cores. And the fringes that sort of give the Left and Right bad names and make them look bad as if the entire Left and Right is like that. And that’s what we saw in the Left in America in the 1960s and 70s. Where the Left in America was no longer made up of Liberals and Progressives. But the New-Left emerged of people who I would call Socialist Anarchists. Or Occupy Wall Street people of today. 
People who do not see America as a great country, but a force for bad in the World. And want to try to make the country like Europe even though Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to go that far. And some people who call themselves FDR Democrats today do not even understand Franklin and just look up to him because of the New Deal. And see him as their vision for creating some type of European welfare state and finishing the job of the New Deal and Great Society.
But in the 1990s American-Liberalism made a comeback with Bill Clinton. And the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party was no longer in charge. And Clinton New Democrats were and the Democratic Party once again became about opportunity and freedom for all both economic and personal. Rather than being about the welfare state and government-dependence. As well as a country that could not only defend itself, but would do what it took to defend itself without trying to govern the world. Bill Clinton brought American liberalism back to life and made it a governing-philosophy again and perhaps saved the Democratic Party as well. 
Liberal Democrat 



American Rhetoric: President William Jefferson Clinton's Farewell Address


Source: American Rhetoric- President William J. Clinton-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

Before Bill Clinton became President of the United States, Liberal Democrats in America were seen as something we are not. We had all sorts of negative stereotypes about us, not all of them unfair. Because there are Democrats back then and today who meet these stereotypes, but they just aren’t Liberal Democrats. And there’s a different and accurate term that defines their politics. But they just aren’t liberal, even though they have some liberal views on social issues. 

Pre-President Clinton, Liberal Democrats were seen as tax and spend, big government supporters, Socialists. Who are soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare. That we just wanted to soak the rich in taxes to take care of the poor. And soak the middle class in taxes to take care of them as well. That we wouldn’t do what was necessary to protect the country. And that we see the US Constitution a document to use for advice. But that it wasn’t enforceable.
By the time President Clinton left office in 2001, Democrats were more trusted on law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, the economy, fiscal responsibility than Republicans who use to own these issues. And this didn’t happen by accident. Just within the first two years of the Clinton Presidency, President Clinton got a deficit reduction package through Congress. That had deep budget cuts and a tax hike in the wealthy. 
President Clinton got two trade agreements through Congress as well. NAFA and GAT and got the 1994 Crime bill through Congress as well. That had the Brady bill on Handguns, meaning to buy a new handgun, you had to pass a background check. And new tough sentences on violent offenders. Including a Three Strikes Law, 25-Life for criminals convicted of violent felonies. 
Presidents are judged by what shape the country was in when they took over. And what shape the country was in when they left office. President George H.W. Bush by a lot of measures was a successful President. Especially on foreign policy, but the country was just coming out of recession. With high unemployment, low economic growth, high interest rates and Inflation and a large Federal debt and deficit. 
President Clinton also inherited a high crime rate when he took over in 1993 and all of those problems were either gone by 2001, or those problems were under control when he left office in 2001. And it didn’t happen by accident, because of the policies that the President got through Congress from 1993-95. But with also Welfare to Work in 1996, working with a Republican Congress.
President Clinton showed Americans that liberalism is not about being soft and irresponsible and that taxpayers will always cover the mistakes of others. That it was about individual liberty, the US Constitution and limited government. But that people also had to be held accountable for their decisions. And that America had to do what it takes within the US Constitution to defend itself. And that government can help people who are down get on their feet and become self-sufficient. This is why President Clinton was such a successful President, the best President we’ve had since Harry Truman. 
American Rhetoric: President William J. Clinton's Farewell Address



Friday, September 19, 2014

The New Republic: Opinion: William J. Dobson: A Victory For Democratic Foreign Policy

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, May, 2011

I had just turned five years old and was in kindergarten when President Jimmy Carter left the White House in January in 1981. After losing reelection in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in November 1980. I remember President Carter being President for like a year or so and at least hearing about the 1980 presidential election when they were happening. Jimmy Carter I believe in a lot of ways is an very impressive and intelligent man. 
And I believe the best Ex-President America has ever had, especially with what the Carter Center has done around the World on human rights. His intelligence and morality even came through while he was President with what he tried to do and was successful to a certain extent on energy policy and even foreign policy. While attempting to get America off of foreign oil and with his success’s with the Panama Canal Treaty, recognizing the People's Republic of China and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.  
But in some ways he was also a weak leader and I don’t say that with a smile on my face. Like a lot of brilliant people, President Carter had and probably still does a great ability to analyze issues and the problems. But what he lacked was the ability to come up with answers to deal with the issues he and his Administration and the country faced. The economy and the Iranian Hostage Crisis being perfect examples of this.
When I look at President Obama’s presidency, I see similar characteristics to President Carter. Not be able a lot of times to make decisions quickly, even if the right answer seems obvious. Like Libya for example, or being able to take tough stands on issues. Because I believe he’s more interested in not offending people and thats what happens a lot of times when you make tough decisions. Even if its the right thing to do and thats why they are called tough decisions. 
There’s rarely full agreement to do anything in America a country of 310M people. A lot of times there’s not even a consensus, so if Leaders want to get things done and make the right decisions. They have to risk offending people, including special interest groups that generally support you. Th reason why Barack Obama is not a 2nd Jimmy Carter, because even though it takes him a while a lot of times to get to the right decision. He eventually gets there.

Health care reform, Wall Street reform, the Bush tax cuts, the budget agreement and Libya are good examples of this. This past weekend when the President and his National Security Council were in the process of taking out Osama Bin Laden, the President displayed a new ability, the ability to make the right decision and to do it quickly. His NSC gave him the opportunity to take out the most important global serial murderer. And President Obama pulled the trigger and took him out and it made me proud that he’s my President and to be an american.


Thursday, September 18, 2014

James Miller Center: Video: President Lyndon Johnson: Remarks on Decision to Not Seek Reelection in 1968

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, March, 2012

When President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection in March of 1968, the United States was very divided, but they were united around the fact that they didn’t like Lyndon Johnson as their President. His approval rating was somewhere in the 30s and America was a very divided country. Between the establishment and I guess Culture Revolutionaries that were tired of being told how to live and be and what it was like to be an American. And wanted to live their own lives the way they wanted to. Whether the conservative establishment was happy with their choices or not.  

And of course we were divided as a country over Vietnam, the civil right movement, crime was high, riots everywhere, the Federal Government getting much bigger with the Great Society. And America was looking for a change and had President Johnson ran for reelection, he would’ve definitely had a primary challenger. Senator Gene McCarthy had already announced he was running for President. And Senator Bobby Kennedy was considering running for President. Both Democrats and LBJ might of won the Democratic Nomination. 
But there’s no guarantee of that and even if that did happen he would’ve ended up leading a divided Democratic Party, which is what Vice President Hubert Humphrey ended up doing. Going up against a united Republican Party around Richard Nixon. Starving for a big win and a path back to power after being out of the White House and being the minority in Congress for the last eight years.

With Vietnam, high crime and the riots, LBJ lost the ability to lead a country that was divided. And looking for someone else to be their President and he made the right decision both politically. But for the country as well and gave Americans an opportunity to look for someone else to be their President. And take the country in a different direction, which is exactly what they got in Dick Nixon.