Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Sunday, May 31, 2015

CNN: U.S. Senator Rand Raul- 'The Right to be Left Alone is The Most Precious'

Source:CNN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) on the Patriot Act.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Rand Paul spoke out against the Patriot Act on Sunday, hours before it was set to expire." 

From CNN

First of all, the Patriot Act is going to expire at midnight in less than two hours from the time this piece is posted, because of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and his Neoconservatives in his caucus. They could’ve spent the last two weeks on either the USA Freedom Act that was passed by the House with 388 votes. A huge bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- 'The Triumph of Anglo-America: Religion, Politics & Civil Warfare'

Source:The Film Archives- owns this photo.
Source:The New Democrat 

"Phillips was educated at the Bronx High School of Science, Colgate University, the University of Edinburgh and Harvard Law School. About the book:Amazon

After his stint as a senior strategist for the Nixon presidential campaign, he served a year, starting in 1969, as Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney General, but left after a year to become a columnist. In 1971, he became president of the American Political Research Corporation and editor-publisher of the American Political Report (through 1998... 

From The Film Archives

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American liberal democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) we have the liberal democracy that we have today. Along with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s to see that liberal democracy and American constitutionalism applied to all Americans.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom, where there was a state religion from the U.K, where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive and build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. 

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights today, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and liberal democracy.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: 'Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality'

Source:The Independent Institute- The Economist, which is a center-right, liberal publication in Britain, with a look at progressivism.
Source:The New Democrat 

"Contemporary supporters of an expanded role for government are increasingly moving away from calling themselves liberals and toward referring to themselves Progressives, so it is worth considering what the ideology of Progressivism entails.

Progressivism began in the late 1800s as a political movement that advocated expanding the role of government. Before the Progressive era, Americans viewed the role of government as protecting individual rights. The Progressive ideology argued that the proper role of government should go beyond protecting individual rights to include looking out for people’s economic well-being.

Progressivism is explicitly designed to use the force of government to take from some to give to others. In its early days, Progressives envisioned the state reining in the economic power of people like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt to prevent them from exploiting those with less economic power. Even this vision makes clear that the goal of Progressivism is to impose costs on some for the benefit of others.

The Progressive ideology is now firmly ingrained in the political system, and everybody recognizes that the government routinely takes from some to give to others. Because this is how our government now works, Progressivism encourages people to engage in politics to increase their chances that they can be on the receiving end of those transfers.

Meanwhile, the idea that some might be using their economic power to exploit others has fallen by the wayside. It’s not that Progressives don’t think this can happen; it’s that the Progressive transfer state recognizes claims made by anybody, regardless of whether they were harmed or exploited by others.

Welfare programs transfer wealth from taxpayers to recipients without any thought that the recipients deserve the transfers because they are being exploited by taxpayer. Instead, coercive wealth transfers are the “compassionate” thing to do. But the rich as well as the poor see Progressive government as a source of economic support. Giant corporations receive subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory protection even though when Progressivism was born, its core idea was to transfer from them rather than toward them. Progressivism leads to cronyism.

While the idea of Progressivism was to expand the role of government to both protecting people’s rights and looking out for their economic well-being, the actual result of Progressivism has been that because it provides economic benefits to some by imposing costs on others, it violates people’s rights rather than protecting them. Progressive regulations limit people’s freedom of choice, and Progressive tax and transfer policies take the property of some for the benefit of others.

Despite its compassionate-sounding agenda of looking out for people’s economic well-being, the political philosophy of Progressivism justifies a government that violates the rights of some to provide economic benefits to others." 

From The Beacon 

Replace the words progressive and progressivism, with socialist and socialism and I probably agree with everything that Randall Holcombe said about progressive and progressivism here. But he's just dead wrong, unless he's talking about socialist and socialism, accidentally and just made those mistakes. 

The actual definition of Progressive, is someone who not just believes in progress (where the word progressive actually comes from) but progress through government action. That government can be a force for good (to sound corny) to help people improve their own lives. That doesn't mean taking from the rich to take care of everyone else, or essentially outlawing independent wealth and individual freedom. But using government to try to create a society where as many people as possible can succeed in it. 

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom is necessarily a bad thing. Progressives, unlike Socialists in many cases, believe in all of those things. 

A true Progressive, doesn’t believe that government can and should do practically everything if not everything for the people. Socialists, don’t seem to have a problem that a new tax increase and government program can’t solve and do something new for the people.

Progressivism, was basically born in the late 1890s and early 1900s, under people like Teddy Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson and many others, as part of the so-called Progressive Era. These people who might have seem radical then, but today they would be mainstream, Center-Left, Progressive Democrats. 

Thanks to the Great Depression and with Franklin Roosevelt coming to power as President in 1933 with an overwhelming Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate, the New Deal was born. The American safety net and social insurance system to help people in need help themselves and get themselves back on their feet.

The originally Welfare system was badly designed. Because it didn’t require people on Welfare to finish their education and even look for work. Unlike Unemployment Insurance where people have to look for work and even get help from the program looking for work. 

The basic idea of progressivism is that government can help people when they are down get on their feet. And protect the innocent from predators. Either in the economy with the regulatory state. And put criminals way when they hurt the innocent physically and otherwise with the law enforcement state. And protect the country from foreign invaders with the national security state.

If you look at the economic options of the 1930s, the progressive economic approach was actually the middle ground. Which might sound strange even for that period. 

But think about it, you had Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right, saying that government shouldn’t do anything to help people who are down and stay out of the economy all together. 

Democratic Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left, saying that private enterprise and capitalism is the problem. And that government should take over a lot of these sectors in the economy to serve the people. 

Progressivism, is not socialism, but a very mainstream American ideology.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Paul J. Watson: 'Absolute Proof Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'


Source:Paul J. Watson- playing an escaped mental patient who was kidnapped by right-wing Nationalists and forced to lie about liberalism. Actually, I don't even know if he's lying here. I mean if he's an escaped mental patient, he might simply not know what he's talking about, because he's not only an escaped mental patient, but he escaped reality as well.

Source:The New Democrat 

“If you want a glimpse of what happens to countries when they embrace the mental disorder of extreme liberalism, look no further than Sweden." 

From Paul J. Watson, who could be the Minister of Miss-Information for Info Wars.

Keep in mind, Paul J. Watson is a spokesman for Info Wars, which is the right-wing populist version of The Onion, except they report fewer facts than The Onion and don’t sell themselves as satirists, but truth tellers. And if you can keep that in mind, then you should find a lot of what Alex Jones and PJ Watson very entertaining and even humorous, even if they’re not trying to make you laugh intentionally.

Actually, Info Wars or Prison Planet Live, the group I guess that Paul Joseph Watson works for, Alex Jones’s clan, is another way of saying The Onion. The difference being, that The Onion has a better record as far as reporting things that are actually true.

Actually, Fox News reports more real news than Prison Planet Live and Info Wars combined. And if it wasn’t America’s liberal First Amendment, which is our Freedom of Speech for all you out there who don’t know what the First Amendment is, (God help you) PPL and Info Wars wouldn’t be allowed on the air.

Friday, May 8, 2015

The Capital Gang: March 27, 1993: Foreign Policy & The Clinton Budget


Source:My Vintage Video- CNN's Al Hunt.
Source:The New Democrat

President Boris Yeltsin who certainly has his issues as President of Russia, looks like a good guy if not a saint, at least compared with Vladimir Putin today. It would’ve been nice had Russia been able to transition away from President Yeltsin and to someone like him. And continued with the economic and political reforms in Russia. And not of moved in a neoconservative if not Far-Right direction. That they’ve been on ever since Putin became President of the Russian Federation in the late 1990s.

As far as the Clinton 1993 budget, I agree with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. Who then was not only highest ranking Republican in Congress, but in the U.S. Government at least, when he said that President Clinton shouldn’t get that much credit for getting his budget plan through. Because he had an overwhelming Democratic Congress back then. Of something like 257 seats in the House and 57 in the Senate. And where the Senate Minority can’t block the budget and require sixty votes to pass it. Leaders shouldn’t get extra credit for simply doing what they are able to do and should do.
Source:My Vintage Video

Thursday, May 7, 2015

My Vintage Videos: The Capital Gang- February 20, 1993: The Clinton Deficit Reduction Plan

Source:My Vintage Video-CNN's The Capital Gang.
Source:The New Democrat

This whole show was about the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. That was offered by President Bill Clinton, which was his first major economic bill as President. That was passed by a Democratic Congress by a total of two votes. One vote majority in the House and a one vote majority in the Senate. With only Congressional Democrats voting for the DRA. With not a single House or Senate Republican voting for it. You can make a case that the DRA cost Democrats Congress in 1994. But the plan worked with the budget almost balanced by 1996. With most of the new revenue to the Federal budget coming from the new revenue and tax hikes from the 1993 plan. Which was a combination of spending cuts both in defense and non-defense and a tax hike on the wealthy. And reversing some of the tax cuts from the Reagan Administration from the 1980s. The plan was costly politically, but it worked.
Source:My Vintage Video

Monday, May 4, 2015

Movie Clips: I Want To Live! (1958) Susan Hayward Stars as Barbara Graham


Source:Movie Clips-
Source:The New Democrat

I saw this movie today in preparation for this blog. Thank you TCM! This movie is about the adult life and criminal career of Barbara Graham. And this movie gives perhaps the most positive light possible of a career criminal Barbara Graham. Who before she was convicted of murder, the most serious crime she was ever convicted as far as actually hurting another person was check forgery. Not to put down check forgery and to make it look anything other than what it is which is, a serious economic crime. That has to be treated seriously with serious consequences for offenders who commit this crime. But Graham, was an economic criminal, not a terrorist, or violent criminal. But she did hang out with people like that.

If I knew nothing about this case before I saw this very good movie with the gorgeous and adorable great actress Susan Hayward as the lead in the movie playing Barbara Graham, I would say that Graham didn’t deserve the death penalty. And if I was a judge on this case or the Governor of California back when the case was going on, I would’ve commuted her sentence to life without, or life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years. I think there is actual doubt in whether Graham is guilty of this murder, but I haven’t seen anything that suggests that she’s innocent either. But even if I believed she was guilty, I would still give her life without or second degree murder.

Barbara Graham, was no angel. She just looked like one and was a career criminal, but a small time economic criminal at worst. Someone who wrote bad checks, prostitution, doing and perhaps using illegal narcotics. But she wasn’t again violent criminal, at least in the sense that she made a career out of physically hurting people. Even if she did commit the murder that she was convicted of. Life without parole or twenty-five to life would’ve given everyone involved the opportunity to prove one way or another where Graham was guilty or not. And again we’re talking about one murder, which is bad enough, but she wasn’t likely to murder again. At least based on her personality and past. And was someone who society could’ve worked with and even gotten something out of.
Source:Movie Clips

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Warner Brothers: The Last of Sheila (1973) Raquel Welch & Dyan Cannon


Source:Warner Brothers- Raquel Welch & Dyan Cannon.
Source:The New Democrat

Raquel Welch and Dyan Cannon, here are two Hollywood goddess’, who truly are Hollywood goddess’ and have stand the test of time. They are both now in their seventies and in Dyan’s case will turn 80 in two years. And Raquel, at best now as far as youth in years, would be an aging Baby Boomer, depending on how you define the Baby Boom Generation. But if you look at her she looks 10-20 years younger than her seventy-four years. And looks better than women today not only young enough to be her daughter, but in some cases young enough to be her granddaughter.

And Dyan, still looks great as well and here’s a movie where Raquel is not the cutest women in it. Because Dyan Cannon at least in my opinion is cuter than Raquel. When I think of sexy babies, women who are at lets say beautiful at the very least, but with a nice body and personality and are also baby-faced adorable. Both Raquel and Dyan are sexy babies, but Dyan is in that first group of baby-faced adorable goddess’. She’s up there with Angie Dickinson, Kim Novak, Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Diana Dors and perhaps a few others. And she’s also a hell of an actress and very funny actress, as you see in this movie. With her famous adorable and funny laugh and smile. Raquel, is just a step behind Dyan when it comes to adorability, at least in my opinion.

Perhaps I should say something about this scene. As far as the women in it, Joan Hackett by most standards is pretty attractive women as well. But she’s in the same movie with two of top goddess’ that Hollywood has ever produced. In Raquel Welch and Dyan Cannon and simply gets overshadowed if not blacked out in it. You have Raquel and Dyan in the same scene, sunbathing on a yacht in bikini’s. Talking to each other, with Dyan joking around in it. With the Joan Hackett character looking and perhaps feeling somewhat left out in it. At least until Raquel walks away, because her character I guess is tired of the Dyan character. And the two remaining women played by Dyan Cannon and Joan Hackett telling each other why they are there.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Warner Archive: Back to Eternity (1956) Robert Ryan & Anita Ekberg Star


Source:Warner Archive-
Source:The New Democrat

This is one of the best soap opera/airplane disaster movies that I at least have ever seen. They set up very well as far as what the crew and passengers are about and why they’re on the plane and what they’re trying to accomplish. You have a couple that wants to get married, trying to get South America. You have men simply trying to get there to open and be at a new casino there. You have a Nordic goddess, played by the great Anita Ekberg, whose former boyfriend a mobster, is simply trying to get rid of her. And sends her to South America with a lot of money. She essentially has to go, or risk being killed by this mobster. You have a hotshot pilot played by Robert Ryan, who is probably a bit too cocky and doesn’t take all the precautions that she should. And is a reason why the plane crashes.

You have a condemned convicted murderer, who is being extradited to some South American country to be executed, played by the great Rod Steiger. Whose character gets to decide who leaves the jungle and goes back home on the plane once it is fixed and who stays and has to take their chances. Simply because he has the gun and the power. But he knows he’s rotten, or garbage, perhaps you have another word you prefer. And decided the people who are the most unselfish and the people who are the best in the group will leave on the plane. And people who are closest to him as far as goodness, I guess and character, will stay with him.

Anita Ekberg, is a goddess and was a goddess in this movie. And she was hot, sexy and really adorable in this movie. But she also plays a big important role as the person who essentially takes over as the parent or guardian of the lone kid on the plane. Whose mobster father has sent him away. She also serves as inspiration for the Captain and Co-Pilot, who aren’t sure they can pull this off and get the back and running. The first seventy-minutes or so of this plane, are really good and interesting. The last twenty other than the killer deciding who gets to stay and go, slows down somewhat. But this is still a very exciting and interesting movie.
Source:Warner Archive