Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic Nomination Speech

Source: Clinton Foundation- Governor Bill Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) accepting the 1992 Democratic Party nomination for President, at the Madison Square Garden, in New York City.

Source:FRS FreeState

In 1992 when the Democratic Party nominated Bill Clinton for President, the Democratic Party completed the transition it started in the mid 1980s after losing the 1984 presidential election in another landslide similar to 1984 and the third landslide loss they had at the presidential level since 1972 and after the 1984 landslide loss. A coalition of Democrats who by the time Bill Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President in 1992 were called New Democrats who aren’t Moderate Democrats, but Liberal Democrats, but not in the stereotypical ways that Liberals tend to get stereotyped as today.  

But Liberal Democrats who weren’t pro-government, but not anti-government either, but Democrats who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Not use government to try to managed Americans lives, but empower people so they can do that for themselves. Which is very different from the way the Democratic Party was prior to 1985 and how they were seen.

I believe the biggest legacy that Bill Clinton had as President of the United States and his political career in general was how he changed the Democratic Party and moved the Democratic Party. Changing it from a party that was at least as seen and in some cases with the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. As a anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-success, anti-military, ant-religious, anti-American even party. To a party that became in favor of all of those things, but wanted them to be used in a responsible way. 

Didn’t want people to be able to force their values on the rest of the country that didn’t agree with them especially through law. Wanted all Americans to have a good opportunity to be successful in America instead of a select few being able to control most of the wealth in America. Who weren’t anti-military and didn’t believe America should or could police the world, but protect America. That was pro-law-enforcement but also respected civil liberties and personal freedom as well.

The New Democratic wave in the Democratic Party really started in 1976 with the Democratic Party nominating Jimmy Carter for President. And how President Carter moved the country as President on economic and foreign policy. By taking the position that the country didn’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t do everything for everybody. That there was a limit to what government could do for the people who people themselves needed more power and freedom to be able to take care of themselves and that America also needed to be strong at home as well as abroad. 

One problem with Jimmy Carter is that he didn’t get reelected and as a result the Democratic Party in the early 1980s went back to the Social Democratic Party that was at least seen as against those things I’ve already mentioned. And seem to have a new tax increase or government program for all of the country's problems. And what Bill Clinton did in 1992 was move the party back to what Jimmy Carter started in 1976 and was able to move the party forward because he got reelected in 1996.

I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit as it relates to the Democratic Party especially because he essentially saved the Democratic Party and kept it as a national party that remained competitive at the presidential level. And thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama the Democratic Party wins back Congress in 2006 and have retained control of the Senate since 2007 even though they lost the House in 2010 and the Democratic Party has been able to do these things because they are no longer seen as a Far-left Social Democratic Party. 

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

President William Jefferson Clinton: Farewell Address (2001)

Source:American Rhetoric- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001)

Source:FRS FreeState 

"My fellow citizens, tonight is my last opportunity to speak to you from the Oval Office as your President.

I am profoundly grateful to you for twice giving me the honor to serve, to work for you and with you to prepare our nation for the 21st century. And I'm grateful to Vice President Gore, to my Cabinet secretaries, and to all those who have served with me for the last eight years. This has been a time of dramatic transformation, and you have risen to every new challenge. You have made our social fabric stronger, our families healthier and safer, our people more prosperous.

You, the American people, have made our passage into the global information age an era of great American renewal. In all the work I have done as president, every decision I have made, every executive action I have taken, every bill I have proposed and signed, I've tried to give all Americans the tools and conditions to build the future of our dreams, in a good society, with a strong economy, a cleaner environment, and a freer, safer, more prosperous world. I have steered my course by our enduring values: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, a community of all Americans... 

You can read the rest at American Rhetoric 

"President William Jefferson Clinton's Farewell Address to the Nation. Delivered 18 January 2001. Audio corrected re-issue. Courtesy William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library. Complete transcript and audio at:American Rhetoric." 

From American Rhetoric

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

Pre-President Clinton, Liberal Democrats were seen as tax and spend, big government supporters, Socialists. Who are soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare. That we just wanted to soak the rich in taxes to take care of the poor. And soak the middle class in taxes to take care of them as well. That we wouldn’t do what was necessary to protect the country. And that we see the U.S. Constitution a document to use for advice. But that it wasn’t enforceable.

By the time President Clinton left office in 2001, Democrats were more trusted on law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, the economy, fiscal responsibility then Republicans who use to own these issues. And this didn’t happen by accident. Just within the first two years of the Clinton Presidency, President Clinton got a deficit reduction package through Congress. That had deep budget cuts and a tax hike on the wealthy. 

President Clinton got two trade agreements through Congress as well. NAFA and GAT and got the 1994 Crime bill through Congress as well. That had the Brady bill on Handguns, meaning to buy a new handgun, you had to pass a background check. And new tough sentences on violent offenders. Including a Three Strikes Law, 25-Life for criminals convicted of violent felonies. 

Presidents are judged by what shape the country was in when they took over and what shape the country was in when they left office. President George H.W. Bush by a lot of measures was a successful President. Especially on foreign policy, but the country was just coming out of recession with high unemployment, low economic growth, high interest rates and Inflation and a large Federal debt and deficit. 

President Clinton also inherited a high crime rate when he took over in 1993 and all of those problems were either gone by 2001, or those problems were under control when he left office in 2001. And it didn’t happen by accident, because of the policies that the President got through Congress from 1993-95. But with also Welfare to Work in 1996, working with a Republican Congress.

President Clinton showed Americans that liberalism is not about being soft and irresponsible and that taxpayers will always cover the mistakes of others. That it was about individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government. But that people also had to be held accountable for their decisions. And that America had to do what it takes within the U.S. Constitution to defend itself. And that government can help people who are down get on their feet and become self-sufficient. This is why President Clinton was such a successful President, the best President we’ve had since Harry Truman.

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

Source:FRS FreeState   

I had just turned five years old and was in kindergarten when President Jimmy Carter left the White House in January in 1981. After losing reelection in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in November 1980. I remember President Carter being President for like a year or so and at least hearing about the 1980 presidential election when they were happening. Jimmy Carter I believe in a lot of ways is an very impressive and intelligent man.    

And I believe the best Ex-President America has ever had, especially with what the Carter Center  has done around the World on human rights. His intelligence and morality even came through while he was President with what he tried to do and was successful to a certain extent on energy policy and even foreign policy. While attempting to get America off of foreign oil and with his success’s with the Panama Canal Treaty, recognizing the People's Republic of China and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.    

But in some ways he was also a weak leader and I don’t say that with a smile on my face. Like a lot of brilliant people, President Carter had and probably still does a great ability to analyze issues and the problems. But what he lacked was the ability to come up with answers to deal with the issues he and his Administration and the country faced. The economy and the Iranian Hostage Crisis being perfect examples of this.  

When I look at President Obama’s presidency, I see similar characteristics to President Carter. Not be able a lot of times to make decisions quickly, even if the right answer seems obvious. Like Libya for example, or being able to take tough stands on issues. Because I believe he’s more interested in not offending people and thats what happens a lot of times when you make tough decisions. Even if its the right thing to do and thats why they are called tough decisions.   

There’s rarely full agreement to do anything in America a country of 310M people. A lot of times there’s not even a consensus, so if Leaders want to get things done and make the right decisions. They have to risk offending people, including special interest groups that generally support you. Th reason why Barack Obama is not a 2nd Jimmy Carter, because even though it takes him a while a lot of times to get to the right decision. He eventually gets there.

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

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

Source:FRS FreeState

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

And of course we were divided as a country over Vietnam, the civil right movement, crime was high, riots everywhere, the Federal Government getting much bigger with the Great Society. And America was looking for a change and had President Johnson ran for reelection, he would’ve definitely had a primary challenger. Senator Gene McCarthy had already announced he was running for President. And Senator Bobby Kennedy was considering running for President. Both Democrats and LBJ might of won the Democratic Nomination. 

But there’s no guarantee of that and even if that did happen he would’ve ended up leading a divided Democratic Party, which is what Vice President Hubert Humphrey ended up doing. Going up against a united Republican Party around Richard Nixon. Starving for a big win and a path back to power after being out of the White House and being the minority in Congress for the last eight years.

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

Remember This: 'The Truth Behind the Clinton White House'

Source: Remember This-

Source:The New Democrat 

The real story behind the Bill Clinton scandals was that most of them were bogus. The Lewinski affair and the China scandal from 1996 were the only real stories and so-called scandals for Bill Clinton as President, which is nothing compared with Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra and Richard Nixon with Watergate. Or go back to Lyndon Johnson lying to the country about America's involvement in the Vietnam War and the progress of the war.

The hatred towards Bill Clinton from the Far-Right and other hyper partisans in this country, except for the race factor, is not that much different from the hatred that Barack Obama has received as President. What they hate about Bill Clinton is what they hate about Barack Obama. Which is what they both represent, two New Democrats on the Left who represent the changing of America that we've been going through as a country since the 1960s. With all sorts of new Americans having their freedom in this country. No longer restricted to living a traditional way of life.

The Far-Right in America lives in the 1950s. The rest of the country lives in the 21st Century as far as how Americans live in this multi-culture and lifestyle country where all Americans are free to be themselves. And no longer having to feel the need to hide who they are or try to be someone else. And when someone from this part of the country rises to power and becomes not just powerful and not just the most powerful person in the country, but in the world, the Fa-Right goes nuts and accuses that person of trying to destroy their way of life and seeks out to destroy them.
Source:Remember This

Roy Dan Baron: 'Liberals Are Idiot Compassion & Conservatives Are Wise Compassion'

Source:The New Democrat

I'm going to try to put this in a way that is as accurate as possible, but at the same time isn't overly insulting and unfair. Because I do respect Roy Dan Baron who at least up to this point I saw as someone who is a real Liberal Democrat in the sense that he believes in liberal democracy and would like to see everyone around the world with the opportunity to live in freedom. Including Americans, which is something I and The New Democrat believes in well. But at the same time his last post about Liberals, Conservatives and poverty is pure nonsense and even Tea Party propaganda. And that point also deserves and should be made.

His first point about Liberals believing in welfare over work. Which is my paraphrase and you'll be able to see exactly how he put that on this post, and that Liberals believe in creating a socialist state. Well there is a few problems with that. One the obvious is not true. If you are a Liberal, you believe in liberty, the whole point of the word. If you are living off the state meaning taxpayers who support themselves, you are obviously not living in free, are you. Because you are free to support yourself and manage your own affairs.

Also you can't be a Liberal and a Socialist, it's one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Neoconservative and as strong believer in the national security state and the military industrial complex and also be a Libertarian. Who puts individual liberty over everything including security. Or be a Religious Conservative who believes in their religious beliefs and their way of life so strongly, that you believe that everyone else should live by your values and even enforce that through law. And also be a Libertarian.

His last point being about "Conservatives believing in the free market over everything else and if government just gets out-of-the-way, everything will benefit from that". Really? Well maybe someone who is a Conservative in the classical sense, meaning someone who believes in conserving freedom and the Constitution and not subtracting from those things. And that when government and business are combined or interlocked with things like corporate welfare, that is bad for freedom because now you're putting business in charge of our well beings with our tax dollars subsidizing them.

If that is your idea of a Conservative, than I agree with you and present to you Barry Goldwater who was the real thing when it came to Conservatives and perhaps Senator Rand Paul of today. But the problem with this is that today's Conservatives as much as they claim to hate welfare, are addicted and in love with what is called corporate welfare. Which is subsidizing business's and allowing for them to avoid taxes simply because they are very wealthy and successful. When they fail, you bail them out and are Socialists. But when individuals fail, its the free market and the best of luck to you. This is not conservative, but its what is called corporatist. Which is a huge difference.

I don't mind debating the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Actually I love the idea and love doing about poverty which is an issue that both sides care about and even have some thing in common on. But just as long as we are debating the real differences and not throwing bogus charges (to be nice) at each other, but that both sides understand what the other side is about. And honestly and truthfully expresses what they are about and what they believe in.

Global Freedom Network: Post: Roy Dan Baron

"Liberals are Idiot Compassion & Conservatives are Wise Compassion

Liberal Democrats believe in Idiot Compassion which is giving things to help people with welfare giving things to people live off the state and become socialist with no incentive at all to do any work.  In other words to become bums of the USA.

Republicans and conservatives believe in what is called Wise Compassion which is NOT giving things away but it's actually living in a USA country and a system where you don't have roadblocks to access healthy safety work food clothing shelter community Conservatives enable

free market systems where anybody can go register an LLC and start a company and work hard to be successful 

So it's saying no we're not going to just give you those things you're going to have to get out work and work hard and then you can be successful but you also live in a USA country where it's NOT a socialist country & we are not going to spread wealth all around to everybody and give everything away.

This is a USA society where we have are supposed to have free markets and there's zero roadblocks and anybody and everybody has 100% equal opportunity to be extremely successful and work hard and do well this is what we call Wise compassion." 

Cannabis News: Post: Vincent J. Lavery: No One Has Ever Died From Smoking Marijuana

Source:FRS FreeState  

The idea that we lock people away in prison for several years for smoking, growing or selling pot, when we have overcrowded prisons with two-million people locked up in prison and many of these offenders being non-violent, when we don’t lock up people for drinking, possessing or selling alcohol or smoking tobacco, which are just as dangerous drugs if not more so, but for some reason aren’t considered narcotics, is more dangerous than illegal narcotics itself. 

Alcohol and tobacco are both very addicting and can cause of serious diseases, including addiction. But also heart disease, liver disease, lung cancer, diabetes and others. Plus the problems alcohol and tobacco bring to the society. With our economy with people being less productive because they are sick from drinking too much. Or have clothes that smell like nicotine. 

And so many other issues facing this country, with multiple economic problems, seems very ironic to me, it tells me the reason for marijuana prohibition is about politics and ideology rather than policy. That politicians can’t come out on favor of marijuana legalization because they are worried about looking “soft on crime”. And if we legalize marijuana, "that could lead to other drugs". Really? see that actually that happens with alcohol and tobacco. Again both legal.

If we legalized with regulation and taxation of marijuana and treat it like alcohol, what happens, less people going to jail and prison who didn’t hurt anyone. Which saves us a lot of jail and prison space. Money that could be spent on other priorities. We now spend more on our corrections system than our education system. More tax revenue would be collected because of the sales tax on marijuana. More well-paid jobs would be created, producing, growing and selling marijuana.

With these workers paying taxes off of their income. Instead of making all of their money on the black market not paying taxes, unlike people working in the alcohol and tobacco industry’s. We would save money on law enforcement because instead of going after people for marijuana activities, they could spend their time and resources on actually going after dangerous criminals. Who are actual threats to society.

I’m not arguing that we legalize marijuana today and let the chips fall where they may. What I’m saying is that we treat like alcohol. And give the marijuana industry no special advantage over the alcohol or tobacco industry. 21 or over to smoke, sell or produce marijuana. Licensed to sell or produce marijuana. No driving or flying or operating any vehicle under the influence of marijuana etc.

A significant tax on marijuana, because we are not talking about spring water here. Marijuana does have negative side-affects. This would be a much better approach than prohibition. Just look at alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, that didn’t work either. Because if people want to do something bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it and the hell with the consequences. If you're a true believer in limited government and a true disbeliever in big government, then your for legalization with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because support letting people live their own lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom protect everyone's freedom.