New York Daily News: S.E. Cupp: State of The Union a Window Into Barack Obama's Mind'

Source:The New Democrat

What I don’t think that S.E. Cupp gets that is of course President Obama was taking a victory lap last night. Which is his right, because the economy is finally moving and moving well. No longer are we talking about one-percent economic growth and creating somewhere around a hundred-thousand jobs per month, with unemployment still well over seven-percent. We are seeing real job growth around three-hundred-thousand jobs per month and economic growth 3-4% and wages finally growing again. And all of this happened under President Obama’s watch and any Republican president would’ve taken the same credit.

The whole point of the State of The Union, well just look at that phrase State of The Union, the President explains the situation of the country. Where we are doing well and things that we need to work on and things that we could be doing better at. And then giving some ideas about what he would do in those areas and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Which is what President Obama did with his version of Morning in America, which was about a year late for a lot Congressional Democrats who are no longer in Congress. He said he believes he can work with Congressional Republicans. He pointed to trade, tax reform and infrastructure.

The President said we meaning Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Barack Obama himself agree for the need for new infrastructure investment. But disagree on how to pay for it. Both sides want to pay for it, but differ on how to pay for it. Which is true and that is why we haven’t had any infrastructure bills come out of Congress since the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President said they agree on the need for new free trade and that he’s waiting for Congress pass new trade bills. Which is also true that Congressional Democrats, not Republicans especially in the Senate will fight him on.

The President said there’s bipartisan agreement on tax reform. Lower rates and eliminating loopholes, which is also true. The disagreement is where tax reform should be revenue neutral or not. Should rates be lowered to make up for every single tax loophole elimination, which is what revenue neutral is. The President did issue some veto threats and why would that be any surprise to any smart Republican. I mean are they really expecting him to say yes to legislation he disagrees with. The job of the President is not to everything that Congress wants. And for Congress to give the President everything he wants. Whether government is divided or not.

Another part of the State of The Union is to layout what the President wants to do in the coming year and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Especially in areas where they know there’s already agreement on. Infrastructure, trade, tax reform and criminal justice reform are the issues that President Obama has found agreement with Congressional Republicans on. And in the next year or so we’ll see if he has any success with working with them on. Or will this be about 2016 with each party giving the country their agenda. With Americans having the opportunity to give one party a united government.

Keith Hughes: What is a Conservative?

Source:The New Democrat

I’m just going to give you the classical definition of conservative and conservatism and how you believe that relates today, that is up to you. Because I’m not so much into classical or modern when it comes to conservative, but what it actually means to be a Conservative. And I go to Abraham Lincoln and look at least some of our Founding Fathers. Up to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Robert Taft in the 1940s, Dwight Eisenhower at least to a certain extent in the 1950s, Barry Goldwater from the time he entered Congress in the 1950s, until time Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987. And then I would go to Rand Paul today and the conservative libertarian wing of the Tea Party.

If words are going to matter, than so have to definitions, otherwise words are just words, sort of like a politician giving a speech, but not really saying anything. So when I look at the word conservative, I look at the word conserving. I know! Shocking right, the nerve of me, but that is what conservative means, someone who believes in conserving. And the other way to look at conservative, would be someone who believes in moving conservatively. “Not so fast, Joe, lets take another look at this before we decide where to go from here”. John Boehner Speaker of the House, fits that definition like a glove.

So now take conservative up to politics and how does that relate and especially the role of government. Okay, so I’ll give you the political conservative how that plays to role of government.  

So a Conservative is not going to want to expand the government. At least not quickly and again they believe in conserving. So a Conservative won’t vote to repeal someone’s individual rights. And that gets to property rights and one’s money like with tax increases. Where a Conservative will tend to be against. But that also gets to things as it relates to personal issues, like the Right to Privacy. A Conservative is not going to support limiting or subtracting those things. Why, because that fails two tests of being a conservative. Subtracting instead of conserving and expanding the role of government.

If you have heard Barry Goldwater’s line about big government, I suggest you do because it a must get as far as what it means to be a Conservative. “I’m a Conservative because I want big government out of my wallet, bedroom, boardroom and classroom”. So a Conservative is not going to support taxes hikes, property rights restrictions and regulations that put government in charge of running private organizations. But a Conservative is not going to support at least ay the federal level laws that tell Americans, consenting adults who they can sleep with, who they can marry, what they can do in the privacy of their own home and how they can spend their own money.

If you call yourself a Conservative, because you are against big government and believe in individual freedom, then you are against big government as it relates to both the economy, but personal lives and personal issues. Otherwise you’re not a Conservative, perhaps You are half of a Conservative, Perhaps you’re half of the loaf. “I believe in individual freedom when it comes to economic policy and big government because it comes to our personal affairs. Because Americans are smart enough to know what to do with their money. But not smart enough to know how to spend it on their own, or manage their own personal affairs”. Now you’re not a Conservative, but a pandering politician and propagandist. There’s what conservatism means to a non-Conservative.

Random Acts of Knowledge: Watergate: The Conspiracy Crumbles (1994)

Source:Random Acts of Knowledge- Senate Watergate Committee Democratic Counsel Sam Dash.

Source:The New Democrat

President Nixon killed his presidency, at least his second term the day he decided to tell his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to order the FBI to drop their Watergate investigation. Once Dick Nixon learned that members of his own campaign team and people who also worked for his White House were involved in Watergate, he decided that the way to handle this investigation was to cover up. But covering up Watergate is like trying to stop a river that is flooding, with a mop. You know, good luck and I hope you don’t drown trying to mop your own floor.

Again Watergate by itself, minor league baseball perhaps even rookie ball for players who just graduated high school and looking for a job in the summer. A typical job done by, quite frankly assholes who don’t know what the hell they’re doing. Perhaps are high on Red Bull or something and looking for something to do at around 3AM. But Watergate was a coverup in its own, because it covered up the real scandals in the Nixon White House. The organized crime operation done at the expense of Nixon political opponents.

If Watergate broke and people know the truth behind Watergate, the Nixon presidency goes down as well. That was President Nixon’s calculation. Not something that a politician of Dick Nixon’s talent, skills and intelligence would assume. They would say, “look we’re not involved here, let the Washington PD and FBI needed do their jobs and let’s get back to national affairs”. And that would be the cynical attitude. The good public servant would’ve said, “this is a Washington police story, let them do their jobs and we’ll do ours”.

One of the sad things about Watergate, is that a lot of the men involved were good moral men. Gordon Liddy, a conscience short of being a good person and a case of beer short of being a sane person would be an exception. But most of these men were career lawyers and good family men with wives and kids. And had they never of worked for Dick Nixon, they never end up in a scandal like this. Hell, had Dick Nixon not of become President, he probably ends up running his own New York law firm, or a college professor. A very talented man.

The Lip TV: Byod With Ondi Timoner: Dimitri Logothetis 'On Why Sam Giacana Killed JFK'

Source:The New Democrat

One of the followers of this blog is a big fan of JFK assassination conspiracy theories and is currently reading a book that has its own theory of the JFK assassination. So I think he might like this and is welcome to comment on this post and let us know what he thinks about this. As far as Dimitri Logothetis about Sam Giancana ordering the assassination of President Kennedy, before anyone calls Mr. Logothetis a whack job or anything like that, he’s only putting a theory out there. And admitted in this interview that the only people who know how many people are responsible for the JFK assassination are all dead.

Again these are theories, some of them are nutty and baseless in fact. Like the fact that Far-Right racists and radicals in Dallas murdered Jack Kennedy and did it by themselves. Or that Vice President Lyndon Johnson murdered the hit on Kennedy. Or the CIA and perhaps the FBI as well ordered and perhaps even did the hit themselves. But at least one of them has real hard evidence around it and that is the one I’m going with about the Italian Mafia and that they had a lot to gain with President Kennedy being killed. They had the motive, the opportunity and the people to do it. And the fact thatJack Ruby was connected with them and that Ruby was also connected with the JFK killer Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination, just backs this theory up.

Dimitri Logothetis is not saying that he knows that Sam Giancana and his crew murdered President Kennedy. What he’s saying is that based on all the evidence that he’s seen, that he believes that is the most likely scenario. And who better a patsy than Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby. I mean who would miss those two people. Oswald hated Kennedy and didn’t have anyone around to miss him. Ruby was one of the Mafia’s men and who associated with them, hung out with them and did business with them. And plus he was already dying before being sent to prison for killing Oswald. So these things add up and are worth considering as far as how many people may be responsible for the JFK assassination.

CBS News: Sunday Morning- Mo Rocca: Ronald Reagan's One-Liners

Source: CBS News-

Source:The New Democrat

I’m surprised with Ronald Reagan’s great sense of humor and not all of it being political, that after his b-movie acting career dried up like fresh dirt in the desert in the 1950s, that he didn’t go into comedy writing and perhaps take that writing which he did anyway on the stage. And try a career as a comedic actor, or a standup comedian, hosting his own late night talk show, which is what Jack Parr, Jack Benny and later Johnny Carson did. That type of format would’ve been perfect for him. He obviously wasn’t a great actor, but someone with intelligence, who could also act and with a great sense of humor.

To sort of build on Ron Reagan’s daughter Patti and what she said about her father in the video, Reagan had a rough childhood. He didn’t have an absent father, but he probably saw his father drunk as often as he saw him sober and that made things difficult for him and his family. And then you look at his broadcasting, entertainment and then later political career, you would almost have to have a great sense of humor to get through those experiences. Out of work in your early forties or so in the 1950s when practically everyone else was working in the 1950s, must have been rough on Big Ron.

Reagan had the GM Theater show, which was similar to what you see now with Turner Classic Movies. Where there would be a host coming out and giving a little preview of the movie and then they would go to the movie. And then after that is was basically straight into politics. First campaigning for Barry Goldwater when he ran for president in 1964 and starting his own political career in 1965. When I think he probably could’ve been successful pre-politics as a comedy writer, or even political satirist. And writing satires and articles and perhaps even books. Telling people what is funny and what he thinks Americans should be thinking about politically as well.
Source:CBS News

The American Mind: A Historical Look at American Liberalism

Source:The New Democrat

I like how Walter Mead put it about liberalism that there have been different stages of liberalism, but I would put it differently. And that the Liberals that Mead was talking before America and the Federal Republic was put together with its federal system and the Liberals are of the eighteenth century were the real Liberals in America. Mead used the term real liberalism, I’ve used that myself as well, but I tend to use the term real liberals instead. I don’t buy the notion that if you call yourself a Liberal, Conservative or whatever, than that is what you are. That if you want to be part of those clubs, there are certain values you have to believe in and practice.

I would’ve love to of seen our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America and what they would’ve thought of today’s so-called ‘modern liberals’. I seriously doubt they would’ve seen people on MSNBC talk, who watch MSNBC talk, who read or write for The Nation and what now has become The New Republic, after apparently it was hijacked from Socialists, I doubt they would’ve viewed these leftists as Liberals. You have writers for The Nation and TruthDig supposed to be Liberals, who identify their own politics as democratic socialist. John Nichols and Chris Hedges, respectfully. Certainly on the Left, but who make Liberals look very conservative in comparison.

I’m a Liberal, a proud Liberal at that and have always identified my own politics as liberal. Tom Jefferson perhaps the Founding Liberal in America and Jack Kennedy are two my political heroes. Jefferson for the idea of the Federal Republic, individual rights and freedom, a real individualist, who also believed in responsibility. Yes he owned slaves, but his vision for what America should be and could be for everyone, even if he didn’t include Africans and women of all races, still stands as this great liberal democracy where is freedom can be achieved for everyone.

Except for slavery and racism Jack Kennedy believed in the same things as Jefferson. A bit more progressive than Jefferson when it came to the idea of a public safety net. But Kennedy believed in individual freedom both personal and economic for everyone. He believed that all Americans should and have equal rights under the law. You can be a Liberal and believe in individual freedom and also believe in the public safety net for people who fall on hard times. A public insurance system for people who are going through rough economic waters. What separates Liberals from Social Democrats lets say, is that Liberals believe in insurance. Social Democrats believe in welfare and government dependence regardless of income level.

Jack Kennedy believed in the public safety net, but again a social insurance system for people in need. That would help them in the short-term be able to survive, but would also empower them to be able to get themselves on their feet and live in freedom, not of government. Thats the main difference between a Liberal and a Socialist. Between a Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton and a Bernie Sanders. Limited government to help and empower people, vs an unlimited government designed to take care of everyone for an indefinite period. The real Liberals believe in opportunity and freedom. Good opportunities to achieve freedom in life. Not the freedom to live off of a welfare state and take no responsibility for one’s own affairs.

The American Mind: Individual Rights vs. The Administrative State

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with some of what John Marini was talking about as far as the Progressive Era as far as Progressives back then wanting to change the country and put in public social insurance that people could use when they are in need, that we as a society a collective would all contribute to finance those services. But where Marini and I separate is that Progressives back then wanted to change the U.S. Constitution, or even be more radical and do what today’s so-called Progressives, who aren’t real Progressives, but that is a different subject, but today’s so-called Progressives are much more radical. And if anything would throw out the U.S. Constitution and replace it with something a lot less individualist and more collectivist.

The Progressives of the Progressive Era were radical back then and even through the New Deal period and perhaps even as far up to the Great Society era of the 1960s. But today they would be pretty mainstream, especially compared with Occupy Wall Street or the so-called Coffee Party movement from the New Left that came about in the late 1960s and all through the 1970s and we now see their sons and daughters carry this movement through today. People who support Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders and want them both to run for president in 2016. And these people are Social Democrats that don’t like our federal republican form of government with our individualist constitution. And would like to see more a a social democratic collectivist form of government. That perhaps doesn’t even have a Constitution.

What the Progressives of the 1930s and before that, what they were actually were moderates more mainstream leftists. You had Communists and Marxist Socialists who wanted to the U.S. Government to respond to the Great Depression by creating what is known in Europe, especially Scandinavia as a superstate or welfare state that would make the New Deal look like a child in comparison. Because there would be a boatload of new federal social insurance programs that would be designed to provide most if no all the human services that people need to live well. Education, health care, health insurance, banking, housing, childcare, pensions, unemployment insurance, energy and perhaps even more. To go along with nationalizing major sectors of the American economy.

What the New Deal Progressives wanted to do was to create a public social insurance system that people could take advantage of when they needed it. Unemployment insurance for people who are out of work. Welfare insurance for people without the skills they need to get a good job and who also have dependents. Food assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed themselves adequately and feed their kids. Public housing for people who do not make enough money to even afford an apartment. These are social insurance programs which is much different from a welfare state that is designed to take care of people and are universal so that people regardless of income level would be eligible, if not required to take them.

Now in the last years of Franklin Roosevelt’s life he even moved further left as President and proposed something called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which would’ve been the next phase of the New Deal and perhaps gone as far as creating that superstate that Socialists in the 1930s wanted. But that is not what he was talking about in the 1930s and what Teddy Roosevelt Progressives were talking about at the turn of the 20th Century. Progressives tend to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and even things like individual freedom, just as long as it is not used to hurt and prey on innocent people. Its today’s so-called Progressives, Social Democrats welfare statists in actuality, who tend not to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and American individualism.