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

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

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

From See Black Power 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

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

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

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

From Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Such is Life Videos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

From the Senate Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Liberty Pen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Wikipedia 

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

From VOA News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Senate Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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