C-SPAN: President John F. Kennedy- 1963 Address on Civil Rights

Source:C-SPAN- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) addressing the nation about civil rights in 1963.

"President John F. Kennedy's Civil Rights Address" 

From C-SPAN

When I think of how Democrats should be and this is going to sound real arrogant, but I look at myself when I'm talking politically. Democrats should be Liberals and Progressives who believe in liberal democracy, because we believe in individual freedom. 

Liberal democracy is about economic, social, political, religious, freedom of choice, as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our freedom. That we get back to what Old School Liberalism is. Not how liberalism is stereotyped today, which looks more like socialism. Liberalism is about individual liberty, again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our choices. But thats me. 

Every Democrat can have their own version of what Democrats should be. But to me we are supposed to be the Liberal Democratic Party in America, because we believe in liberal democracy. Not a Social Democratic Party, that some so-called Progressives today would like us to become. Or a Centrist Democratic Party, where those people could probably be Republicans as well. Like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. 

When I think of people who come the closest in representing what Democrats and liberalism should be, I think of Jack Kennedy with Bill Clinton being not that far behind. As well as some Liberal Democrats today like Senator John Kerry (another JFK with very similar politics as Jack Kennedy). People who are Liberals not because they believe in collectivism that government can solve all problems. But because they believe in individual liberty.

Jack Kennedy, in particular comes closest in representing what democrats are supposed to be. Not just because of his politics, but with his power to communicate his views. Just like Barry Goldwater represents exactly what Republicans are supposed to be because he was definitely a Classical Conservative. And communicated classical conservatism as well as it could be communicated and I would add Ron Reagan to that list as well. 

Even though President Kennedy was late to the dance on civil rights and had he got there earlier, maybe he could've got the ball rolling on it earlier, but he got there. And it wasn't that he didn't believe in civil and equal rights, but that it was politics that was keeping him from it. Losing the South in the 1964 Election, which is a weakness on President Kennedy's  part and I'm not excusing it. 

President Kennedy comes closest to representing what Democrats should be. Because he was strong and smart on defense not soft that a lot of Democrats after him got accused of being and to a certain extent for good reason. 

JFK supported equal rights, individual freedom. Didn't want the Federal Government growing indefinitely, that there was a limit in what it can do to help the country. Fiscally responsible, these are all things that Liberals actually believe in. That government can help people who are down get themselves up, with what's called a safety net. Not a welfare state and they are different.

JFK is what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. (Someone who believes in liberal democracy) Now I'm sure I'm farther to the left on a lot of social issues than President Kennedy. Like decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution and perhaps gambling as well. But those issues, weren't considered mainstream back in JFK's time. 

JFK comes the closest from every Democrat I've ever seen, as someone who doesn't believe in any form of big government. Doesn't believe in collectivism, but believes in individual freedom instead. Which is one of the reasons why he was such a strong anti-Communist, not only in Congress, but as President as well and I wish we had more Democrats today like Jack Kennedy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Marijuana Policy Project: 'Our Marijuana Laws Destroy Lives: The Rachel Hoffman Tragedy'

Source:Marijuana Policy Project- victims of the War on Drugs?

"Watch the tale of Rachel Hoffman, a young college student killed when the police bust she was aiding in went wrong." 

From the Marijuana Policy Project

With all the problems and actual dangers that America faces as a country, in crime, economic and in foreign policy and with the limited resources that we have as a country. Because we are drowning in debt, you would think that we would dedicate the limited resources that we have to address the actual problems that we face as a country, while we are trying to get the economy going again. And trying to get our Federal debt and deficit under control and stop arresting people who aren't hurting anyone other than maybe themselves. 

We don't arrest people for eating or selling junk food or drinking or selling soft drinks (at least not yet) and we should stop putting innocent people's lives in danger as well as their family and friends by having them go undercover to try to get evidence on people, for what they do to themselves. 

There are so many reasons not to have marijuana prohibition in America and a lot of them can be traced back to alcohol prohibition. One reason would be and is enough for me as a Liberal, gets to freedom of choice. We now have the right to drink alcohol (that is adults 21 or older) we now have the right as adults 18 or over to smoke, tobacco but yet we don't have the right to smoke or use marijuana. 

Marijuana is a drug thats less or about as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco, that causes less damage on society as the other two drugs. Thats still being used in society just illegally under current law and being used tax free. (And you wonder why we have runaway deficits and debt)

All of you so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) out there that want to use a lot of government to solve our problems, should have a problem with that, because marijuana prohibition gives so-called Progressives less revenue to build their "Great Society" through government. Representative Barney Frank is a so-called Progressive in the House that actually understands this. Which is one of the reasons why he supports decriminalization of marijuana. Which means in basic terms: treating marijuana like alcohol and tobacco, through regulation. I wish more Congressional Democrats would take the same position. 

I wish President Obama who's a solid Progressive Democrat on so many other issues would come about with the same position, especially with his legal background. But instead he's to the right of some Conservatives as well as Republicans on this issue: Representative Ron Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, and the great Conservative writer Bill Buckley, and others. But instead President Obama is to the right of these three men on this issue of freedom of choice. 

At some point America as a country needs to realize that we don't have an unlimited fountain of wealth when it comes to money and other resources. That we have to be somewhat conservative (meaning responsible adults who don't have unlimited financial resources) that we are more responsible with the resources that we have as a country. And that we end marijuana prohibition from the Federal level and let the states deal with this issues themselves.

VOA News: Deborah Block- 'Teach For America Program Serves Rural, Low Income Schools'

Source:VOA News- teacher Natasha Alfer.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] 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.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]

Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda." 

From Wikipedia 

"A shortage of teachers in the United States means it has become difficult to get teachers to work in rural and low income urban areas.  Teach for America, a non-profit organization, is helping to fill the gap. It recruits recent college graduates and young professionals to teach in those areas for two years.  VOA's Deborah Block visited a school in Washington, where a woman who used to work for an investment firm is now a teacher." 

From VOA News

Anything that we can do as a country through the public as well as private sectors to encourage more well- educated people to teach and teach in under-served Communities, we should be doing. And thats what this program is about, encouraging more good educators to teach in under-served communities, urban and rural so those students can have a shot at getting a good education as well. 

We need a public education System thats not based on how much money your parents make that determines whether you can get a good education or not, but based on how well the students do themselves in school. We should give all of our students a shot at a good education and then see what they can do with because right now our public education system is funded through property taxes. 

The schools are funded based on the property tax in that community and how much the property's are worth. So if a student lives in a middle class or an upper class community, chances are they are going to be able to go to a good school and the educators there are even well-paid because that community has the resources it needs to have good schools. 

If a student lives in a low-income community (urban or rural) chances are they aren't going to be able to go to a good school, because that community won't have the resources it needs to have enough good schools. 

Money is not a magic bullet in education, but it's definitely a bullet thats needed to have good schools. So what the Teach For America Program does, is encourages good teachers to teach in these under-served communities that doesn't have enough resources have enough good educators for all of their students. So thats a good step and reform. 

We also need things like more charter schools to give our students more choice in where they get their education. As well as public school choice, so our students aren't forced to go to a school based on where they live. 

We also need some type of system that would allow us to equalize the funding of our public schools, that would help make up the difference financially between upper and middle class communities, with low- income communities that would provide additional resources for under-served schools so they have the resources that they need to do a good job. And then all of our students would have a good shot at getting a good education in America no matter what community they live or if they go to a public or private school. 

With as bad as the economy is and as bad of shape our fiscal situation is right now and will be in the future, if we don't address it properly, now is the best time to reform our public education system, so we can have the best schools possible to produce as many well-qualified workers as possible. So when we finally get the economy going we'll have enough workers for those job and keep more good jobs in America.

Council on Foreign Relations: Edward Alden & Bernard L. Schwartz- 'Free Trade Agreements Signal Bipartisan Cooperation'

Source:Council on Foreign Relations- Senior Fellow Edward Alden.

"The U.S. ratification of the stalled Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama indicates that "there is a possibility, despite the very great partisan divisions in Congress, of bipartisan cooperation on economic issues," says Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. However, Alden emphasizes that "it is important not to overstate the potential job creation benefits" of the agreements." 

From the Council on Foreign Relations

The fact is America has to trade with foreign countries. We are a country of 310M people in a world of 6B people. We are huge, but we only represent 5% of the world's population. Most of the customers in the world live outside of America, so it's in our best interest to trade with these countries especially in our own neighborhood like Canada, Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean and in emerging markets in South America like Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and of course with the European Union, Arabia and Asia, and even in Africa. 

An economic policy that would work best, includes foreign trade. Making things in America, selling them here which creates jobs in America for Americans. But also selling those products to other countries by exporting them, including our natural Resources. If we ever get around to establishing a national energy policy to sell as many products as possible to make as much profit as possible to create as many American jobs as possible. 

What foreign trade is about when it works and it works when tariff rates are low and equal, meaning you have the same tariff rate in your country, as your trading partners have in their countries. 

You also have assistance for people who lose their jobs as a result of free trade and help for them to find another job for people who lose a job thats not coming back. Assistance to learn a new trade even while they are on Unemployment Insurance. 

What we shouldn't be doing is having an isolationist policy either on trade or foreign policy and limit the influence that we can have as a world power both economically and in foreign policy. But we shouldn't be trying to run the world either but representing our own national interests and expressing our own democratic values. And foreign trade is a way to do this to be engaged with what is happening in the world. 

One of the reasons why I'm for eliminating the trade embargo with Cuba, who doesn't represent a threat at all to us economically, their military or in the war on terror, Cuba is simply not a threat to America, perhaps never has been. The trade embargo has cost both countries and hasn't helped anyone, denying Cubans and Americans access to the other country and allowing Cubans to see what liberal democracy looks like, individual liberty as well. But this is what we should be doing with any country whether they are democratic or not, as long as they don't represent a threat to us. 

If you want to have a strong economy and be able to influence other people's and other countries, you need to talk with them in order to do that and do business with them to give yourself maximum access around the world and be able to make as much profit as possible. And have as many customers as possible as well, otherwise you are just talking and dealing with yourself, which can get lonely.

VOA News: 'Activists Seeking to Capitalize on Occupy Protests'

Source:VOA News- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] 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.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]

Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda." 

From Wikipedia 

"As anti-Wall Street demonstrations continue in New York City, the growing furor over bank bailouts and the weak economy continues to spread throughout the United States.  In Boston, dozens of protestors were arrested for refusing to leave Dewey Park. In Washington DC, protestors were hoping to have their permit renewed to allow demonstrations to continue.  The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations there have given a boost to several other local campaigns looking to draw national attention to their causes." 

From VOA News   

“Vijay Prashad: With the 99% slogan, the Occupy movement raises the issue of inequality in a profound way”

Source:The Real News- New-Leftists occupying New York City.

From The Real News

I believe at least a majority of the country supports these protests on Wall Street all across the political spectrum. Wall Street is not very popular with any political party right now, except for maybe the Libertarian Party and Tea Party. That's why we are seeing large protests all across the country against Wall Street and even corporate America to a certain extent. I wish these protests would reach Congress as well, (both in the House and Senate) to get them to start moving and legislating and even coming together.

Occupying Congress and the members who are bought by Wall Street, at least in too many cases, would make more sense, then to simply try to occupy buildings where a lot of investing is done. 

I mean if this was a real occupy movement (Left or Right) and this time it is certainly coming the Left (if not Far-Left) you go where the money is. (So to speak) And occupy the people who take the money from the business's and investors you are say are destroying the American middle class. I know that sounds like commonsense and what does that have to do with American politics, probably nothing, but something to think about. 

And hopefully OWS will at some point, with a 13% approval rating of Congress (and with the people who officially who approve of Congress either dead, living in Mongolia, or in a coma) there's plenty incentive for them to do that, if they have the guts to take on their political bases. 468 members of Congress (between the House and Senate) are up for reelection in 2012. 

And if 2012 is another anti-incumbent election, then a lot of members of Congress (in both parties) could be looking for new jobs after election night. Seriously, the scariest thought for any career politician, perhaps especially someone in Congress, is looking for a new job, Which is why pissed off Americans should be scaring the hell out of them right now.  But right now they are focused on Wall Street so I'll focus there. What these protesters have in common is that they are independent. Meaning they aren't Democrats or Republicans in a lot of cases. 

Not one national organization is running these protests and putting them together. But a bunch of different political organizations perhaps working together. And there's also political diversity within this movement: Socialists, Libertarians, and some Liberals are all part of this movement, perhaps even some true Conservatives, who are fed up with bailouts corporate capitalism and want to see change in our economic system.A diverse somewhat American melting pot of political philosophy. Who have found at least one issue to not try to beat the heads of people they normally don't agree with.

The political diversity in this movement is positive for them in this sense, it indicates that there's broad support for it. That there's not one political party behind it and that the country wants to see real change in our country and our economic system. But it's a problem as well, because there isn't a consensus in what change and reform should look like. 

Conservatives and libertarians would like to see government less involved with our economic system spending less and downsizing and less regulation and no more bailouts and tax less. Socialists obviously are the complete opposite of that and perhaps would like to nationalize some industries, especially banking and health care. 

Liberals would like to see reform with our entitlements, cutting the deficit and debt, infrastructure investment, tax cuts for the middle class, expand free trade. And bring our foreign troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. 

There's significant support for what Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals want to do. Socialists have the most ambitious agenda of everyone, perhaps put together. Having a political coalition of Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and Socialists is not an odd couple. More like a melting pot put into a big stew, that makes people want to vomit after eating it. (Or go to jail for their food instead)

Socialists want to return America to the 1950s as far as tax policy. Tax rates starting at 25% and going up to 90% and people like socialist economist Richard Wolfe have been very upfront about that. As well as nationalizing our healthcare system, nationalizing our higher education system. With the Federal Government now paying for everyone to go to college at taxpayer expense. As well as other things. If you think America has a big government now, put Socialists in charge and this government would look like a midget that is shrinking in comparison to what they want to do.

There's potential for a movement here as being against something, but that's the easy part. The question is what do you do instead, what do you and what do you replace it with. And all of these political factions have their own agendas that they would like to see pass. 

This is not a governing coalition (more like a prison riot made up of all certain types of gangs) but more like a protest coalition similar to what the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s. So I don't see a consensus right now in what to do instead after the partnership between Wall Street and the Federal Government is broken up. 

And that can only happen with either getting private money out of Federal politics. Can't be done without a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court would throw it out. The only other alternative I see is full- disclosure which is very difficult to pass. Because it would require public officials to release to the public who they deal with and how much money they receive from them. Asking a career politician to release their political contributors, is like asking an obese food addict to give up eating cold turkey (including turkey) for a week straight without supervision. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.

Until there's a movement that has broad support in not only what its against, but what they want to instead and can get elected and reelected and puts proposals on the table that becomes law, We are stuck where we are in gridlock, with a do nothing Congress with its first eye always on the next election and how to get their base to the polls and votes for them. 

But look at the bright side: when things aren't going well for you and you are in trouble, you'll always have Congress to make fun of and say: "At least I'm not as bad as those people and know how to get my work done, because I have to work for a living." 

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.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Did Senator Reid Screw Senate Dems?'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has angered Republicans with a controversial maneuver that weakens the power of the Minority party. Did he do this because he believes Democrats will soon be the Minority party? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains." 

From The Young Turks

I'm about to write a fairly wonky post here designed for political junkies such as myself and able to put the rest of the population to sleep. So you now heard my warning and like they say in the movies, this is not attended to all viewers and viewer discretion is advised. 

This post is about the U.S. Senate (the upper chamber in Congress) which is an actually bicameral legislature. (Newsflash for leftists) And how the Senate operates and how it's supposed to operate and how the Senate Republican Leadership has abused its rules in order to stop the Senate Democratic Leadership from doing anything. And to give this impression of the Senate that it's locked in gridlock. 

Thanks to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican Conference, as well as I'm sure Senate Democratic obstructionism when they were in the minority, the Senate needs to reform its rules, not to make it more like the U.S. House of Representatives, but to still respect minority rights in the Senate, like they should be respected in the rest of the country. 

The Senate needs to be able to function, brings legislation to the floor, votes on amendments, including alternatives from the minority party, but then debate and vote. Especially on non-controversial legislation, so that the minority party leadership could still block legislation, but that they just can't prevent legislation from being brought to the floor, debated and amended and then after the debates, if the minority leadership has the votes, then they can block legislation, they just can't prevent legislation from being brought to the floor, amended and debated that the Senate would be able to conduct its business. 

What Senate Leader Harry Reid did Thursday night and I actually saw the debate and discussion, because again I'm a political junky, was bring and pass a motion with a 51-48 vote (of course) a party-line vote, that would prevent any Senator from bringing non-germane amendments to the Senate floor. 

With Leader Raid's motion, no Senator can bring an agriculture amendment to a defense bill. And Leader Reid did this because Senate Republicans have brought countless non-germane amendments to legislation that Leader Reid has brought to the floor, knowing that they didn't have the votes to pass them. But just to slow the debate down and make the Senate Democratic Leadership jump through more hoops in order to bring a Senate debate to an end with the cloture rule. Which I'll explain later. (Hopefully you are still awake at that point) 

So what Senate Republicans have done and I'm guessing under the leadership of their Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is every time Senate Democrats bring legislation to the floor, Senate Republicans bring as many amendments to the legislation that they can in an attempt to drag on the debate as long as they can and they've done this on anything that Senate Democrats bring to the floor. Including on legislation that ultimately passes with bipartisan votes. 

As a result of all of this obstructionism, Leader Reid has decided that he's seen enough, even though I believe it's a little late in the game for this. He's should've done it in the last Congress when he had 59 votes, but this is a good move in attempt to get the Senate moving again. Especially on things like the American Jobs Act, where Senate Democrats are going to make a huge push to pass it. After they amend it and even pay for it with a tax hike on millionaires and above to pay for it. Which of course Senate Republicans would try to block and try to pass this legislation. 

Even if the Republican House doesn't pass a jobs act of their own, but then Senate Democrats will at least be able to say that they are in charge of the Senate and its Congressional Republicans that are in their way. But the Senate needs to go farther to make the Senate more functional. Like eliminating the motion to proceed rule, which takes 60 votes, or at least amend it to 51 votes for the Majority Leader to bring up legislation and just to debate anything. As well as limiting blocking of legislation with the cloture rule to just the final votes on legislation. 

Instead of the U.S. Senate being the "most deliberative legislative body in the world" it's become a debating society (and has given the United Nations a great name) where all they do now is talk about how they are going to talk. Meaning how they are going to debate and they are going to consider. Which is why they need these rule reforms and even go farther like having a real rules committee like in the House , but different, make it bipartisan. Instead of spending time debating how they are going to debate on the Senate floor.

VOA News: Mil Arcega- 'US Adds 103,000 Jobs, Unemployment Still 9.1 Percent'

Source:VOA News- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] 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 

"The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs in September, but the nation's unemployment rate held steady at 9.1 percent for the third straight month.  Although September's job growth was stronger than most economists were expecting, it is still not growing fast enough for the millions of Americans looking for work.  Mil Arcega reports." 

From VOA News

103,000 job net created in September is a hell of a lot better than of course 0 (but what isn't better than 0) that was created in August. Actually, 103K times better and at least the unemployment rate didn't increase. And President Obama finally put a jobs plan on the table and sent it to Congress and the Senate will take it up next week. And they'll offer a plan that will have a sir tax (Sir Tax, sounds like a British Lord) on millionaires. Meaning anyone making a million$ a year or more, would receive a tax hike to finance the American Jobs Act. 

The President's plan has some credibility as far as creating economic and job growth by focusing on infrastructure investment, free trade, and tax cuts. As well as some debt relief for the middle class. And the House is finally talking about a plan that would include infrastructure investment by talking about a six- year highway bill that would be paid for and hopefully in the neighborhood of 200B$ a year. 

This jobs report I believe is a good start and hopefully will advance the ball rolling in Congress to at least debate different plans including the President's and even put their own plans on the table. And hopefully these rallies in Washington will have some affect at getting Congress to do something. The Senate will debate the American Jobs Act next week and will probably amend it. Along with the Chinese currency bill and hopefully the House will at least put their own plan on the table. 

Congress may be forced to put their own jobs plans on the table politically because according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the President is beating by a large margin Congress when it comes to the economy. (Both the House and Senate) And the approval rating for Congress right now is around 15%. (And I wonder if those 15% are willing to make their votes public or fear being ridiculed and looking crazy or both) 

The President has his own plan and the Senate will debate that plan and probably offer their own ideas. And Senate Leader Harry Reid scored a huge victory Thursday night when he won on a motion that would disallow Senators to offer amendments that are non-germane to the Jobs Act. Meaning they have nothing to do with the actual bill, like an agriculture amendment being offered to a defense bill (To use as an example) And Senate Republicans (the minority party) have routinely offered amendments to bills that Leader Reid has brought to the Senate floor just to slow the bill down, knowing they don't have the votes to pass their amendments. 

So hopefully this means Senate Democrats can pass the American Jobs Act out of the Senate. Looks like American business's are hiring again at least according the the September jobs report ,but to continue this in the future, we need to jump start economic growth which will lead to job growth. And the President and Congress need to come together to push a plan to do this so we can get people working again and bring down our unemployment rate.