Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Saturday, August 31, 2013

History Channel: 1968 With Tom Brokaw

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress: History Channel: 1968 With Tom Brokaw

1968 was one of if not the most explosive years in American history, for good and bad. With everything that happened that year from political assassinations, with people being freed to be themselves and live the way they want to. With all the good movies and music that came from this era. With the sporting events, as well as a new political movement in America. That emerged on the Left-Wing and what I call the New-Left in America. The Far-Left even that came into the Democratic Party. That was anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti anything that was previously done in America that seemed as part of the establishment. The mid and late 1960s was changing to the point that for people who weren’t Baby Boomers and were older, were seeing a completely New America.

The term New America I believe gets thrown around a lot and has become another corny catch phrase in American pop culture especially. But we did become a New America not in 1968, but go back to 1964 and perhaps even 1963 when the civil rights movement became mainstream in America. 1968 is that year where America became that true melting pot and where we became that country that just didn’t claim to believe all of those great liberal democratic values of opportunity, diversity, tolerance, individual freedom, freedom of choice, speech, tolerance etc, but we no longer just claimed those values, but actually owned them. We were no longer just a great melting pot ethnically, racially and everything else, but a country where all sorts of Americans became free to be themselves and live their own lives.

Culturally, the 1950s America that the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, have tried to move America back to ever since, it didn’t end in 1960 or even 1968. That culturally collectivist decade ended in 1963 or 64. But 1968 was a year where the right-wing came back and took on all of these millions of Baby Boomers who represented millions of Americans of all sorts of ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds and got behind Richard Nixon for president. And where these New Americans stood their ground. And that is where you see this cultural battle, Cultural War even that is still going on America today. Between Americans who want their 1950s back. Versus Americans who want to continue to progress and create an America that works for all of us.

1968 is a year where you see two America’s emerge. They were always there, but thanks to Hollywood and TV, they became obvious to most Americans. An America who saw things in black and white and if you saw things differently they would view you as Un-American. Versus an America that didn’t see things so simplistically. Who didn’t believe women’s place was necessarily in the home. That women should be able to make this decision for themselves whether to work at home and run the house, or work out of the home for money. Where our religious, ethnic and racial diversity, became celebrated. Where equal rights and diversity were celebrated in the New America. In 1968 you saw young adults essentially taking on their parents and grandparents in this new Cultural War.

America, went through a lot of hell in the 1960s with all of the assassinations and the Vietnam War. The violence that came about against the civil rights marchers, to use as examples. But with all of that violence and chaos came a lot of positive things as well. A Cultural Revolution where millions of Americans and not just Baby Boomers, but my Generation X and Americans after that, were given true American individual freedom to be themselves. So in that sense at least and from my perspective, the 1960s and 1968 even, the most explosive year of that incredible decade, was a great time. It was a time where millions of Americans were given true individual freedom to be themselves. And with what comes with individual freedoms, comes personal responsibility as well. So Conservatives should support this as well.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

John F. Kennedy: Defining American Liberalism

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: John F. Kennedy: Defining American Liberalism

When then U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy after serving almost fourteen years in Congress both in the House and Senate, one his first speeches that he gave after he won the Democratic nomination for president, in I believe the summer of 1960, was about liberalism. Because as a Northeastern Massachusetts Democrat he was being accused and I mean being accused as if being a Liberal is a bad thing, like being called a traitor or something, of being a Liberal and having a liberal voting record in Congress.

And Senator Kennedy gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party Convention in the summer of 1960. And what he did there was to define his liberalism and what liberalism is about and so-forth. And I’m paraphrasing here, but Senator Kennedy said something to the effect, ‘that if being a Liberal is about creating a superstate to take care of everyone so Americans no longer make decisions for themselves with all sorts of government programs to take care of them, or being soft of defense and not willing to do what it takes to defend the country, or being irresponsible with the taxpayers money, then I meaning am not a Liberal.’

But then Senator Kennedy went on to say, ‘but if Liberal means someone who cares about the general welfare of others, someone who believes you need to be strong at home before you can be strong abroad, that freedom at home is just as important as freedom abroad and that all Americans should have access to freedom and not just the special few, then I’m a Liberal.’ Now to interpret what Jack Kennedy said because today’s so-called Progressives use the term general welfare to mean big expansionist central government to take care of everyone.

Modern Progressives see JFK to mean that JFK was a New Dealer, or Great Society champion who was a welfare-stater. Someone who wanted government to have all sorts of programs to take care of people. The problem with that is what JFK said himself that if being a Liberal is someone who believes in creating a superstate to take care of everyone, then he’s not a Liberal. So it is his own words. The way I interpret what JFK said was that he wanted freedom to be available for everyone. And that government had a role, but not the only role, because JFK also believed in limited government.

In many of ways I like to look at myself as a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat. Not so much him as President, but his overall vision for America and what he believed individual liberty means and that it should be available to all Americans. Not the special few, or just for people of a certain race or gender. That where government comes in is to assure that all Americans have access to live in freedom. At least as adults and be able to take care of themselves and not have to be dependent on government. Or private interests for their well-being, but the ability to live in freedom. Which is why my message of economic liberalism tends to be about quality education and job training for all who don’t currently have access to it.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King: I Have A Dream Speech, August 28, 1963

Equal Rights Leader
Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King: I Have A Dream Speech, August 28, 1963

Dr. King’s I Have a Dream Speech, is the crown jewel of the American civil rights movement. Because it laid out exactly what the vision of the movement is. That it is about jobs, justice and equal rights. Which is why you hear Dr. King quoting the United States Constitution that guarantees certain basic human rights to all Americans, not just European-Americans, or European-American men, but the entire country. All of us all Americans share these basic constitutional rights. Which was exactly what the American civil rights movement was about a fight for freedom.

Not too different what the American Revolution was about a fight for freedom as well and to have these constitutional rights. A big difference being that the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent from its start, to its core and to its end. And the fact that the Europeans who won the American Revolutionary War didn’t intend to include other Americans in the U.S. Constitution, the fact is they did when they said all men have the basic human rights. And Dr. King and his movement did was to say they are here to collect those rights. That the United States Government owes them under the U.S. Constitution.

I mean just look at the words of the I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King saying that he has a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here’s someone whose economic politics at least would make him a Democratic Socialist today and yet he’s calling for a color-blind and even race-blind society. Which would actually put him to the Left of a lot of people who claim to be his supporters today. Who are very race conscience and even have racial if not racist views towards Caucasians, even Jews and especially Southern Anglo-Saxons. People of British background.


The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: Bill O’Reilly-“The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.”

The O'Reilly Finger
The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: Bill O’Reilly-“The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.”

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans, still not doing as well as Caucasians, regardless of ethnicity, or Asian-Americans. And that is still the challenge for this community. To come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.


Monday, August 26, 2013

The Birch Swinger's: Video: Bobby Kennedy's Speech For Humanity


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Bobby Kennedy, laying out perfectly what it means to live in a liberal democracy. What individual liberty is about the right for Americans to live their own lives and live in freedom. Without government infringing on individual lives and their rights to live their own lives. All the freedom that Americans need is laid out for us in the United States Constitution. Starting with the First Amendment, with our right to speak, right to assemble, freedom of press, freedom to worship, or not worship.

The Second Amendment, that grants us the right to self-defense. The Fourth Amendment that protects our right to privacy. So government can’t interfere with how individual Americans live their own lives. Including our property rights, that protect our rights to ourselves, but also the property and wealth that we own. And then you go to the Equal Protection Clause, that protects our rights not to be discriminated based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. I’ve blogged about this before, but the United States Constitution is not the problem with America.

The problem with America, is our public officials on the Far-Left and Far-Right. Who don’t understand, agree with and ignore the Constitution. Who somehow view that their statist philosophy is more important than the Constitution. And in their narrow minds, gives them the right to impose their values on what it means to be an American. Over individuals and the Constitution itself. But as long government protects our Constitution, then they are also protecting all the freedom that we need to live and live well.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Lamour Monroe: Person to Person- Edward R. Murrow Interviewing Marilyn Monroe, April 8, 1955

Source: Lamour Monroe- Marilyn Monroe-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

Edward R. Murrow was sort of the Mike Wallace of the 1950s, or perhaps Mike Wallace was the Ed Murrow post-Murrow. But what I mean by that is Murrow was a very intelligent and great journalist and interviewer who preferred hard news, but was so great at what he did and such an intelligent interviewer, that he could interview practically anyone important that is. And entertainers are important, not as important as I believe they should be and definitely not as important as others people seem to believe they are. But they are important in society and life wouldn’t be worth living as much without them.

As much as Ed Murrow could interview anyone and that probably included pro athletes as well, hard news was his steak and potatoes. What kept him fed and what kept in journalism. If it was his choice, he probably doesn’t take Person to Person and make that his show. Which was sort of late night TV back in the 1950s, perhaps a prime time version of The Today Show or Good Morning America. Shows that are generally about making people feel good and telling them about things that they follow in their free time and generally not hard news shows.

But Murrow was also if not the most popular figure at CBS in the 1950s, certainly one of them news or otherwise and CBS was going to use him as much as possible to help their network. And they knew how good of an interviewer he was and how he and Person to Person could help their network. And that Murrow also had See it Now as part of CBS News, so he was going to do his hard news show anyway. That is why someone who was the quality journalist of an Ed Murrow, is interviewing the Goddess of Hollywood at the time Marilyn Monroe in 1955.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Research Channel: Video: Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice

Rev. Jesse Jackson
Research Channel: Video: Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about. To see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

And had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party. That could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.


Thursday, August 15, 2013

RT: The Big Picture: “What To Do When You No Longer Need Your Slaves?”

RT: The Big Picture: “What To Do When You No Longer Need Your Slaves?”

The answer is pretty simple as far as what you do which is create jobs. But as far as how you accomplish that is a little more complicated. But a good way to do that is by creating good jobs in areas that the country needs like in construction and manufacturing. And a good way to do that is through new infrastructure investment which would be a boom for our construction and manufacturing industries. That would create millions of good jobs in these industries. You create jobs by responding to demand and creating new demand. We have a trillion-dollar deficit in infrastructure in America. That is where government can help create jobs financing infrastructure jobs.

Infrastructure investment, is not the only thing that America needs to people back to work and create more jobs. We should be expanding small business and small business loans and targeting those loans to the long-term unemployed especially if they are already educated. And empower them to create their own business, if other business’s won’t hire them. We could create cooperatives among the unemployed and encourage unemployed workers to come together and create their own business’s together. Create new business’s especially in struggling communities with high poverty and unemployment and put people to work in these business’s.

As far as arresting people simply for being unemployed and then kicking these innocent people in the balls, or tush again just for being unemployed. I;m trying to think of something that is not unconstitutional about that. That sounds as bad indefinite detention. As risk at stating the obvious, unemployment is not illegal. When someone is unemployed government should help that person get back to work and help them in the short-term while they’re looking for another job. Not make prisoners out of people who are only guilty of being unemployed and were downsized when business was bad.


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Fox News: John Fugelsang on Fox and Friends- Not So Liberal

Source: FOX News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

It is true that liberalism is about the general welfare and caring about the welfare of others. And something I believe in as a Liberal. But it doesn’t take a Liberal, or a Saint to care about the welfare of others. Just a human being with a conscience. You shouldn’t have to be a Liberal to believe in those things. Just a good person who can see someone besides them self in the mirror, or in their dreams and lives. But liberalism is also about freedom of choice and economic and personal freedom. Rather than, “choice is dangerous that if you give people choice they tend to make the wrong decisions. So what we need is smart people in government making people’s choices for them.”

When you think of the words liberal and liberalism, think of liberty, liberalization, liberation, these are liberal words. People to the left of Liberals, like words like socialize, socialization, social, socialist, socialism even. These words, are well socialist. That is if you’re familiar with the English language. American, British, Canadian, whatever it might be. The Liberal, doesn’t tend to see people as stupid and big government as the savior. That big government going by the name Uncle Sam, will come and save the day by saving people from themselves. Stop them from not spending their money wisely and snatching it before they become successful and independent from big government. Or close someone’s mouth before they try to drink a soft drink, or eat a bag of potato chips, or say something that someone might see as offensive.

Liberalism, is not statist or anti-state, but pro-choice and not just on abortion, marijuana and homosexuality. But pro-choice generally speaking and about having an educated public with the freedom to make their own decisions. Rather than again having big government in the name of Uncle Sam, serving as the national parent for the country. Babysitter more like it, big enough to make sure people don’t make bad personal and economic mistakes with their own lives.

Liberals, are pro-choice, as it relates to both economic and personal issues. Not big government knowing best and deciding these issues for us based on who elects them. Which is what todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’, who are really Statists or Paternalists and not very liberal at all, John Fugelsang, case in point, whether it comes to economic, or personal freedom, do not seem to understand.
Fox News: John Fuglesang on Fox and Friends- 12/31/2011



Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1986-GOW-6/14-New York Yankees @ Baltimore Orioles: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The Orioles started the first of three straight losing seasons in 1986. And 5-6 losing seasons from 1986-91, going through a pretty bad stretch of bad baseball as they closed out Baltimore Memorial Stadium in 1991. 1986 dealing with a bunch of injuries that season and key hitters like Eddie Murray and Fred Lynn dealing with injuries. While the Yankees were still contending, but again not making the playoffs in 1986.

With the Orioles, they were dealing with key injuries to their best players and hitters especially in Murray and Lynn. You’re talking about two of the best all around players in the game at this point. And two of the best power hitters in the game as well. And when your team isn’t that deep to begin with, losing a Lynn and Murray at the same time is really difficult. 1986, very similar as 1984, 87 and 88 for the Yankees. A very solid lineup offensively, but not enough starting pitching and enough depth in the bullpen. For the Yankees to win the AL East, which was a great division back then and still is today.


Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1979-ALCS-Game 1-Anaheim Angels @ Baltimore Orioles: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

Nolan Ryan vs. Jim Palmer, I mean you couldn’t ask for anything more. Perhaps the two best pitchers in the American League at this point and in Jim Palmer’s case perhaps the best pitcher in the American League. I have Palmer, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver as the top three pitchers of this era in Major League Baseball. But Ryan didn’t pitch very well against the Orioles at least at Baltimore Memorial Stadium. He was a much better pitcher at Anaheim Stadium for the Angels than he was on the road. This was an excellent matchup for an ALCS. Both the Angels and Orioles had good pitching, in the Orioles case great pitching. Both teams had very good lineups offensively and played good defense. The Orioles just simply did those things better than the Angels in this series.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Video: What if There Really Was a Liberal Media?

Thom Hartmann: Video: What if There Really Was a Liberal Media?

The fact is, we don’t have a liberal media, or a conservative media and certainly not a libertarian or socialist media. But what we do have is a media that is corporate owned, but by corporations, that represent all of these political factions. As well as public media and locally controlled local media, that is also publicly funded. And what corporate media does, is reports things that they believe are important. As well as what sells and if they are politically slanted, reports things they believe will hold their political side. And hurts the other sides. But since we live in a liberal democracy, a liberal society, a free society, we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. That allows for all of these different political factions, to have their own political news sources. That even allows someone like Thom Hartmann, on the Democratic Socialist left, to come from his vantage point and argue against corporate media. And in favor of what is publicly owned media and even state-run media. That would report the things that he and his political allies see as important. And perhaps ignore things that he believes aren’t in the public interest. And perhaps even censor reports that he disagrees with.


Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Video: Ronald Reagan, Billionaires and Privatization

Thom Hartmann: Video: Ronald Reagan, Billionaires and Privatization

Where Thom Hartmann loses me, is when he says that making a lot of money is essentially a bad thing. That people with so much money and independence and not needing government to meet their basic financial needs, is a bad thing. And that we would be better off if we didn’t have people who were so financially independent. And you do that by taxing them so high and funding a welfare state to do that for them. And together as a country we would put all of our resources together into one pot with government deciding what we need to live well.

What I would do instead, is have an education and job training system, that empowers people to be as successful as possible. Which would be my alternative to this that allows for people to be successful as they possibly can. Even financially, but where they would still have to pay taxes based on what they consume from society. But not having them pay taxes so high just because they make a lot of money, which is different. I’ve said this before, but the problem with America is not that we have too many people who make a lot of money. But that we do not have enough. Which is why we have this income gap. And you close the income gap by encouraging more people to be successful in America.

If you want the democratic socialist superstate that Thom Hartmann and his allies advocate for as often as they can and go out of their way to say, “look at Sweden, they do things so much better than we do. We should be like them.” And have taxes so high on everyone to fund this superstate, someone still has to pay for that. You need an economy producing the tax revenue to fund the social welfare system that takes care of everyone. Instead of allowing for people to be able to take care of themselves and produce what they need for themselves. America is not Sweden. We’re not a country with a lot of land, but a very small population that is energy independent and is a net-exporter of energy. We’re huge country with a huge population. And because of that Americans need to be independent in order to live well. Which means you need an economic system that encourages economic freedom and independence.