Sunday, September 30, 2012

Floyd Webb: Malcolm X- On The Chicago City Desk in 1963

Source: Floyd Webb-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

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.

And 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. And 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. Living 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.
Floyd Webb: Malcolm X- On Chicago City Desk

Saturday, September 29, 2012

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy-CBS News: Walter Cronkite's Interview of President Kennedy, September 2nd, 1963

Source: CBS News- President John F. Kennedy-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

In September, 1963, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite sat down with President Jack 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.
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy-CBS News: Walter Cronkite's Interview of President John F. Kennedy

Friday, September 28, 2012

AP: Mitt Romney: 'I Don't Want to Raise Taxes': Actually Mitt Raises Taxes by 200B$

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 Federal 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 knows better or at. Least should know better, since he's running for President of the United States, is that 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, so when he 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, pure hypocrisy.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

FRSFreeState: AP: President Obama: "Rich Getting Richer Won't Help Economy": How to Create an Opportunity Society

There use to be a time where Republican Economics was about building an economy that did work everybody. That wasn't built around what government can do for the people at their expense but what the people could do for themselves, that believed in the little guy and girl, that celebrated success. But that people shouldn't get successful, by taking advantage of innocent people, that we could create a pot that could benefit the whole country, instead of the wealthy being able to take most. Of that pot and the benefits somehow trickling down to the rest of us. That changed when George W. Bush became President, now Republican Economics is how do we create as much wealth for the. Wealthy as possible, even if we have to raise taxes on the rest of us to pay for it and somehow that will benefit the rest of the country, because the wealthy will invest in new companies. That will create good jobs for the rest of the country, we've tried that before, it doesn't work at least not for more then a few years and then we run into economic trouble, to go along. With a huge debt and deficit.

People getting rich is not the problem, thats a good thing its good for people to be Self Sufficient. In life and have the freedom to take care of themselves, people getting wealthy by taking it out on the rest of the country, not creating new wealth but taking out of the same pot that. The whole country uses, is a problem and when that happens, we see very few people with a lot of money, with a lot of people struggling just to make ends meat, which is not good. In an economy like that, you have high unemployment and a lot of people living off of Public Assistance but. What we saw in the 1990s, was an economy where everyone got wealthier at all income levels and most of the country working, because we had an economy that created jobs, with strong Economic Growth. Where everyone paid their share of taxes and no one had to pay so much in taxes, that it discouraged Economic Growth, because of high tax bills.

What real Economic Freedom is, the ability for people to be as successful in life as their qualifications and production allows. And only taxed on their ability to pay what's fair but not to the point where people are discouraged from working hard, being productive and spending money. Economic Freedom is not where the wealthy pays as little in taxes as possible while the rest of us are struggling to pay the taxes we owe.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Baltimore Sun: Orioles Insider: Eduardo Encina: Orioles Right-Hander Tommy Hunter Hits 101 MPH Saturday: Could Find Home in Bullpen

Baltimore Sun: Orioles Insider: Eduardo Encina: Orioles Right-Hander Tommy Hunter Hits 101 MPH Saturday: Could Find Home in Bullpen

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState 1975 on Blogger

This could work well for the Orioles, because the starting rotation is set for the rest of the regular season and AL Playoffs. Which they have a very good shot at making at this point, so they don't need Tommy Hunter as a starter right now. Tommy Hunter has shown signs of being dominant as a starter in 2012 with his mid to upper nineties fastball that has movement and deadly breaking stuff as well. But he doesn't seem to very strong for more than five innings or so and struggles to get through five innings. 

As a long or middle reliever, Tommy Hunter could let it go so to speak and let it hang out as far as his fastball and breaking balls. Because he knows he's only getting probably at most thirty pitches or so and doesn't have to go six or seven innings and pitch well for that long in a game. Because instead he'll come into the game for an inning or two when an Orioles starter gets in trouble or to hold a lead. And give opposing hitters something else to have to think about in the game. 

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.

Fat Hawaiian Man: Charles Manson Interview With John Aes Nihill

This piece was oirginally posted at FRS Daily Press: Fat Hawaiian Man: Charles Manson Interview With John Aes Nihill

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.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

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

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

ABC News, was such a small operation in the early 1960s. Sorta 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 when 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 were 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.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Wendell Willkie: Video: Defining Classical Liberalism for America

When you hear the term Classical Liberal today, it tends to be used to describe Libertarians, people who tend to be viewed as Right Wingers. When Liberals tend and correctly be viewed as Left Wingers, whereas Liberals today are people who are viewed as Progressives or Social Democrats, people. Who are Collectivists, that no one should have so much money that they shouldn't be dependent on the State, that wealth should be spread around so one has too much of it etc. And that it governments job to make sure these things happen, that people like George McGovern, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jim McDermott are todays Liberals, people with this Collectivist. Mindset and people like Ron Paul are the Classical Liberals people who are really Libertarians but I would argue that Libertarianism, Liberalism and Progressivism are three different and separate ideologies. That Liberals and Libertarians are very close on Social Issues, more like Progressives on Economic Policy, that government does have a role in the economy but Liberals. Would differ on how large of a role that would be, that governments role in the economy is to protect innocent people from being abused and empower people who can't take care of themselves. With the power to become Self Sufficient.

Progressives have more of Statist approach when it comes to the economy and even on some Social Issues. Like we've seen in New York this summer, with the soda bans, crackdowns on marijuana and even pornography, thanks to the Mike Bloomberg Administration, that governments job really is. To look out for people and even prevent them from doing things that Progressives would view as harmful to them, whether its the economy or some of these Social Issues, Liberals are just different there. We don't see governments job to protect us from ourselves but to protect the innocent from people who do harm to them, not outlaw things that may be dangerous but put out all. The necessary information for us to make these decisions for ourselves and if some of these things are actually dangerous, regulate it and even discourage it, not by taking it away but. Providing incentive so that we won't want to do it as often, things like taxes on alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana, that might sound similar but its a big difference.

Wendell Willkie a Liberal Democrat up until the 1930s with the FDR Administration but then became a Republican. Because he saw President Rosevelt take the Democratic Party from more of a Liberal Party, to a Party that was more Socialist or Progressive, dramatically increasing the size. Of the State in peoples lives, Wendell Willkie understood exactly what Liberalism was, that is was about Individual Freedom and that government should only be doing the things that the people. Can't do for themselves, which was a very limited list of operations for government.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

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’.”

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.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

FRSFreeState: NORML: Erik Altieri: Boston Freedom Rally 2012: Why Marijuana Legalization is Coming

We are roughly six weeks away to deciding whether as a country or not with several States that will have Marijuana Legalizations Referendums on the ballot. Where we go in the future when it comes to the War on Drugs, are we going to end Marijuana Prohibition in Connecticut, Colorado and Washington and perhaps other States. Or are those States going to continue to lockup people for taking a drug that has similar side effects then alcohol and tobacco, side effects that are not as bad. As tobacco actually or are we going to treat these drugs like alcohol and tobacco and treat adult Americans like adults and just admit the fact that we can't protect every American from them self. We can't protect most people from themselves and most of the time its just about whether we have enough information out there, for people who are first and lot of cases last in making decisions. That affect their lives, so the people can make their own decisions regarding their own lives, thats a lot what marijuana is about and why Marijuana Legalization the idea that we should stop locking people up and. Treating them like criminals, for what they do to themselves or are we going to continue to treat them like children and send them to the principles office when they do something that Big Government doesn't approve of.

This is what this whole debate is about, whether or not adult Americans should be able to decide and are intelligent and responsible enough. To decide what they can put in their own bodies and how they should live their own lives, instead of Big Government trying to make the decisions. For people they don't know and never met, probably will never meet and try to make these decisions for them, thats what this debate is about at its core. Not whether or not people should use marijuana or not, just whether they should be able to make that decision for themselves. So anyone who argues that Big Government is the problem, that it taxes and spends too much, well first of all I would agree with you on that. But then I would argue where are you on Social Issues as it relates to Big Government and should Government at any size, have the authority. To decide how individuals should live their own live or not, marijuana being an example.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

FRSFreeState: CAP: The Politicization of the Constitution: What Neoconservatives and Progressives Don't Understand About It

I'm going to be careful about how I use the word Conservative and Liberal here because even though todays Republican Party. Is suppose to be the Conservative Party in America and they are more Conservative then the Democratic Party, no doubt about that as much as Libertarians and Progressives. Might disagree with that and even though the GOP still has a Conservative Faction in it, even though its much smaller then it use to be, Conservatives at least in the classical and what. I would say accurate sense, doesn't make up today's GOP at least as far as running the GOP and having more influence over it and Conservatives may no longer even be in the majority of the GOP today. This is not Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan's party any more or what Gerry Ford built up in the House of Representatives in the 1960s and early 1970s as Republican Leader or what John Rhoades. Bob Michael added on to that after Ford left Congress for the Vice Presidency in 1973, that was the Conservative Republican Party, that Ron Reagan led up until 1989 when he left the White House. Today's GOP is the Religious/Neoconservative Party thats run by people like Pat Buchanan, people who look at the World the way he does, that believes what's important in America. Is Christianity, Economic Freedom and a military that can govern the World basically, that we need strong Economic Freedom and limit Social Freedom.

Todays GOP has more of a Libertarian view as it relates to the economy but more Authoritarian everywhere else. That its Economic Freedom thats important and we need to limit what the Federal Government can do in the economy, if not get it out of the economy all together. But the Federal Government needs to be strong everywhere else and not be hampered from silly things as. They would put it like the US Constitution when it comes to protecting and governing the country and if we need Constitutional Amendments to limit Social Freedom in the future, so be it. As it relates to marriage, voting, what people can do in the privacy of their own homes, what they can say in public and so fourth, so be it but that won't be our first avenue, what they'll try to. Do first is outlaw things by statue meaning by law. And again I'm going to be careful with how I use the word Liberal here, because what you might view as Liberal, might not be. The actual definition of what a Liberal is.

So I'm going to say Progressive but Progressives seem to have this view of the US Constitution, especially. As it relates to the economy that if voters wants something and they are elected, officials pass it and make it law, its Constitutional, that thats what a Democracy means. They don't seem to understand what the term Republic is and that the 10th and 11th Amendments don't apply to the Federal Government as far as its ability to influence the economy. They seem to believe America is a Majoritarian or Socialist Democracy, rather then a Republic in the form of a Liberal Democracy, which is what we are, we don't just have Majority Rights. In America we also have National and Constitutional Rights, if 51% of the country wants something done, it won't. Automatically get done, especially if its Unconstitutional, like the Texas Law Voter ID Law that was thrown out last week, being ruled as Unconstitutional.

I'm a Liberal because I believe in Liberal Democracy that we all have the freedom to live our own lives. And that our freedom can only be legally taken away from us, when we take someone else's freedom to live their own lives, meaning we hurt innocent people. And that we have Constitutional Rights that are always protected whether they are popular or not and we only lose. Those Constitutional Rights, when 2/3 of the country, including Congress and thirty four State Legislatures deicide we should no longer have them. Thats what it means to live in a Liberal Democracy, it means that the majority doesn't always rule, especially when they are wrong.

Monday, September 17, 2012

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.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Public Resource-CBS News: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years

Source: Public Resource & CBS News- President John F. Kennedy-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

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 he 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, what 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.
Public Resource-CBS News: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years

Friday, September 14, 2012

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.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Mussie Tsegai: Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate

Source: Mussie Tsegai-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

This was the ultimate debate 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. Because 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 were 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 theres. 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.
Mussie Tsegai: Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Associated Press: Members of Congress Unite for 9/11: The Last Bi Partisan Act of 2012?

It seems now a days that the only time that Congress does anything on a Bi Partisan basis anymore. Is when they almost have to, that they only they would work together, is when they are stuck together. Like House Speaker Boehner and Senate Leader Reid getting trapped in a well or something together and no one knows they are there and they have to work together, so they can get out. And one of them says, I don't usually do this but looks like I'm going to have to work with a Democrat or Republican. In order to fix this problem, its almost as if their lives have to be dependent on it, for Republicans and Democrats to work with each other on anything anymore. Thats how power hungry both parties are right now, now as a Democrat I would argue one party is more power hungry then they other and I'm sure Republicans will argue the other way. But Bi Partisanship today is a sign of weakness from both fringes in each party, when 15-20 years ago it was a sign of Leadership and accepting reality that neither party has all the power. But there are still issues to be addressed and getting a good deal is better then doing nothing at all. We've changed so much politically as a country in such a short period of time.

I can see Speaker Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who are both competing to have the same job in the next Congress. Speaker of the House of Representatives, standing next to each other after 9/11 Memorial Service concludes and one of them telling the other nice speech you gave or something like that. And the other one saying get lost or perhaps something harder then that, I don't have to be nice to you anymore, the Memorial Service is over. As far as the anniversary of 9/11, thanks to Al Qaeda we are now in our 11th anniversary of this horrible day. Where Thousands of people who committed no other crime then to wake up, go to work that day which put them at the wrong place at the wrong time, ended up dying for that. The only good news from that experience is that we are now more safer as a country and will be able to prevent attacks. And have prevented attacks like this from happening in the future, because we now know what we are going up against as a country.

Here's my act of Bipartisanship and its real and I mean it and this might be the last time you ever here me. Give credit to President George W. Bush for anything, we are now more safer as a country at least domestically, because of the actions that President Bush took eleven years ago. We just paid a Hell of a price to become more safer, because we didn't have the intelligence that we needed to combat these terrorists in the first place, despite have warning signs from them for twenty years. And we've paid a Hell of a price as it relates to our Constitutional Rights, passing a lot of legislation that doesn't look Constitutional on its face. Like the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention and there has to be a better way to make us as safe as we can be without throwing away the US Constitution.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

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.”

“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. 

Thursday, September 6, 2012

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.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy