CBS News: President Jimmy Carter- On Hostage Crisis: On Face The Nation (1980)

Source:CBS News- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) 39th President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat 

I give President Jimmy Carter a lot of credit for all the time and effort that he put into seeing that the American hostages in Iran were brought home. Which includes the rescue attempt in the spring of 1980 even though that failed. But it should give you an idea how badly he wanted to see those hostages come home. But he was essentially in an impossible situation with the Iranian terrorists holding all of the cards. And with America looking and being somewhat weak militarily and economically at this point. It was going to be very difficult from the start for the Carter Administration to bring those hostages home in a timely matter.
Source:CBS News

CBS News: John Dickerson: President Jimmy Carter's 'Malaise Speech'

Source:CBS News- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) delivering his 1979 crisis of confidence speech, at The White House.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Over thirty years ago, Jimmy Carter gave his famous "malaise speech," in which the president said the country's economic woes were in part due to a "crisis of confidence." CBS News political analyst John Dickerson dug up this archives clip from 1979." 

From CBS News

I covered most of this yesterday, but John Dickerson's comment about President Carter's speech being "tone-death" was spot on. This speech sounded like a President who was out of ideas and that his administration was also out of ideas. That they tried everything they could think of to fix the economy and that nothing was getting through. But that they also wanted to get reelected and had to do something drastic which was to try to put the blame on the American people for the problems with the economy. And telling them they were spending too much money and blaming the bad economy on materialism.

James Miller Center: President Jimmy Carter's Crisis of Confidence Speech (July 15, 1979)

Source:The New Democrat 

Just to start out and to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. This is one of the most depressing speeches in American history. Especially coming from the President of the United States and coming from someone with the intellect of a Jimmy Carter. Not saying it was one of the worst speeches, or it was even a bad speech. Because he did make some good points about how the country was doing at this time in the summer of 1979 one of the worst summer's the country has ever gone through economically and perhaps in general.

But the problem with the country or even lack of confidence had nothing to do with the people itself. But the actual economy with the runaway inflation and interest rates, the energy crisis that made us look like a third world country in a country with all of the natural resources that we have. This crisis had nothing to do with materialism, or people being selfish, but what it was about the fact that a lot of Americans were unemployed, or seeing their business's fail and finding themselves on public assistance for the first time in their lives.

What President Carter was doing instead of focusing on the true economic challenges that the country was going through instead was trying to put the blame on the American people and suggesting that they were selfish and materialistic. Which obviously didn't play well which is what we see from the polling data after the speech where President Carter's poll numbers went down even further. So this speech was ineffective and if anything cost the President political power.

U.S. Senate Democrats: John Tester: 'Taking Care of Veterans is a Cost of Going to War'

Source:U.S. Senate Democrats- Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana)

"Senator Tester expresses concern that House Republicans are dragging their feet on a veterans bill." 

From U.S. Senate Democrats

Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator John Tester with the lines of the veterans affairs debate. Senator Bernie Sanders, "that if you can afford to send your soldiers to war, you can afford to take care of them when they come back". And the one from Senator Tester "taking care of veterans is a cost of going to war". Something that House Republicans or at least the Tea Party Caucus has either forgotten or simply doesn't understand. That it apparently it was easy for them to run up the national credit card during the Iraq War. But guess what that bill has come due and its time to pay and they don't seem to want to pay the bills.

Constitution Daily: Lyle Denniston: The Constitution Outside the Courts: The U.S. Sentencing Commission

Source:The New Democrat

Making punishment fit the crime should be an obvious statement if it isn't, but if you look at our criminal justice system that of course is not always the case. We have thousands if not more people doing five years or more for simple drug possession and in a lot of times that is their first offense. Look at the War on Drugs where we have thousands of people doing long sentences again for drug possession, or selling small amounts of marijuana and other illegal narcotics. Doing long sentences for selling things that people want to buy, have and use.

And anyone still wondering why we have two-million or more people in prison in America? I sure as hell am not and by the way we have the largest prison population in the developed world. And we are supposed to be this beacon of freedom and great free society this liberal democracy that everyone else wants to be. It is hard to make the case that we are those great things when we have so many people in prison that do not represent major if any threats to society and are doing time in a lot of cases for what they did to themselves. Or providing services that others wanted from them.

I'm not a fan of illegal narcotics including marijuana even though I do support marijuana legalization. I'm not a fan of gambling or prostitution. But just because I don't like these activities doesn't mean I want to arrest people who choose to engage in them. There are much better more cost effective ways to dealing with activities that come with high risks including tobacco, junk food and soft drinks than arresting people and locking them up for engaging in those activities. It is called regulation to make sure non-adults aren't involved in them and making sure that adults who are involved in them know what they are getting into.

And I'm referring to gambling and prostitution mostly. But with lets dangerous products that people choose to use like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, soft drinks and junk food instead of expanding the War on Drugs which is what some nanny statists on the progressive Left want to do. Again regulate them so people know exactly what they are consuming and tax them for it so Americans who choose to live healthy don't get stuck with the health care bills of people who choose not to live healthy.

But that is just one way to cut the prison population and create that free society and liberal democracy that a lot of Americans on the Left and Right do want. Another way would be to say "prison and jail are not always the answers and they aren't always the first answers either". When we are talking about low-level offenses and instead look at halfway houses, community housing, community service, probational release where offenders aren't free or in incarcerated, but living in a halfway house type environment as they are also working so they can pay their rent outside of the home. And getting treated for why they are there in the first place.

We put in policies like this and we'll have all of the jail and prison space needed for real hardcore criminals that need to be in prison. Violent offenders and organize criminals, but also white collar criminals who represent a serious threat to the economy and Americans economic wellbeing. Instead of having so many overcrowded prisons in America full of not only people that we have to have in prison, but with offenders who do not need to be there.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: Dick Cheney The Living Embodiment of Dwight Eisenhower's Greatest Fear

Source:The New Democrat

Darth Vader Dick Cheney on the loose. So no I don't like Dick Cheney or have much respect for our former Vice President. But Cenk Uygur in this video is the perfect example of why I don't use The Young Turks as a credible news source other than to hear what the far-left and the rabid partisan left-wingers in the country are thinking. Dick Cheney didn't say we should pay for our defense and national security at the expense of everything else in that interview. He said that "national defense should be our number one national priority. Not Food Stamps or infrastructure". Which is a huge difference.

Now here is where I agree with Cenk. Dick Cheney is "the living embodiment of what President Dwight Eisenhower's feared" in his Military Industrial Complex speech. That some people especially in the military and people who have worked with the military as Dick Cheney did first as Secretary of Defense and then later as Vice President of the United States. Someone who would put no limits on what we should spend when it comes to national defense. "That there is no such thing as waste in the defense budget. And there aren't many if any limits to what our military can do in the world."

Washington Post: Catherine Rampell: 'Limousine Liberalism's Good Works'

Source:The Washington Post- Liberal investor and billionaire Warren Buffett.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Is it hypocritical for a really, really rich person to object to rising inequality?

I’ve been thinking about this in light of the derision the Clintons are facing for charging six-figure speaking fees while pontificating about income polarization and the plight of the poor." 

From The Washington Post 

"What is LIMOUSINE LIBERAL? What does LIMOUSINE LIBERAL mean? LIMOUSINE LIBERAL meaning.

Limousine liberal and latte liberal are pejorative American political terms used to illustrate hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using limousines or private jets, claiming environmental consciousness but driving fuel inefficient sports cars or SUVs, attacking income inequality while being wealthy themselves, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools." 

Source:Audio Pedia- Classical Liberals, who talk like leftists.

From Audio Pedia

I'm sick and tired (and that is putting it mildly) of hearing people especially rabid partisan right-wingers claim that Liberals hate the wealthy and people with money and hate capitalism and private enterprise. I mean for anyone who actually looks at who has a lot of the money in the country, a lot of those people are Liberals and someone of them even further left than that. I mean seriously what is a so-called Limousine Liberal? A wealthy Liberal, but a Liberal who also cares about the poor.

As a Liberal myself people should be able to make as much money as their skills and production will allow for them to make and what people are willing to pay them for their services. And that includes everyone regardless of political and ideological affiliation. Now what separates me as a Liberal from Libertarians and hardcore Conservatives is that I believe everyone should pay taxes based on how much they make and that includes the rich. You take advantage of the opportunities you were given living in this great country, you should pay for them as well so those opportunities are available for other Americans as well.

I don't have a problem with rich Liberals, but people who are supposed to care about the poor and the income gap, but who do little or nothing about it on their own. And hangout with and associate with people who they claim are the reasons for the income gap in America. Cheerleaders lets say for the poor who say they are on the side of the disadvantage, but don't do a damn thing about it that could actually help those people. And essentially attack the rich to further their own nest. Which I believe was one of the points that Catherine Rampell was making in her column in the Post today. That is where I agree with her.

Again as a Liberal economic freedom is great and we should all be able to make as much money as we are capable of making based on what we bring to the table economically and professionally. But economic freedom shouldn't be based on who you were born to or who your parents know. But it should be for everyone in the sense that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in economic freedom in America. And that doesn't come with higher public assistance checks, but with quality education for all starting at K-12 and even before that for all of our students. And empowering low-income adults to finish their education so they have the skills they need to get themselves a good job.