Constitution Daily: Olivia Fitzpatrick- Vice Presidential Profile Henry Wallace

Posted on September 4, 2016 by Erik Schneider

14494770_1079475812101682_1762471635556407203_nSource:The New Democrat

Henry Wallace, is a very important figure in American politics as well as government and I believe in positive ways for the most part. He was in favor of civil rights, equal rights and equal justice, in the 1940s when very few Democrats were and probably most Americans were. But to supporters and followers of Bernie Sanders and Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein he’s their political father. He created the vision that they’re currently fighting for. A social-democratic or democratic socialist vision that goes farther than the New Deal of that era and even farther than Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. He wanted to create a country and government where the central government became the tool to be used to see that no one had to go without anything they needed to live well. Henry Wallace was to the left of Progressive Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt on both economic and foreign policy. And he was FDR’s Vice President.

Henry Wallace, didn’t believe in fighting the Cold War against Russia. He didn’t see communism as some big evil threat to American freedom. Unlike most Progressive Democrats at the time like FDR, Harry Truman and many others. Similar to Bernie Sanders with the Communist Republic of Cuba, Wallace might of founded aspects of communism that he least respected. As it related to economic policy and the welfare state, even as he criticized it for the last lack of human and individual rights. So he certainly wasn’t in the mainstream of the Democratic Party back then, or wouldn’t be today. Wallace ran third-party for president in 1948, because he couldn’t have beaten President Truman in the Democratic primary season. Again Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, have taken his role as the leader for democratic socialism in America, because there isn’t a major party that represents them. They’re trying to build that movement in and outside of the Democratic Party.

Thanks to Henry Wallace, you have the emergence of the New-Left if the mid and late 1960s. That had both social-democratic and communist factions in it. That was opposed to the Vietnam War, but the Cold War, the American military and American capitalism. That wanted to create a society where government was bigger and more centralized within the Federal Government. And was used to provide the basic benefits that people needed to live well. Instead of receiving those benefits from their employers, or making those choices for them in the private sector. People like Tom Haydon and Bill Ayers and groups like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground, represented the New-Left of this era. And flooded the Democratic Party with all of their members and made it possible for someone like Democratic Socialist Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders of his time) to run for president in 1972 and win the Democratic nomination. Henry Wallace, has made a huge impact on American politics and deserves credit for that.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reform Party USA: Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley- What is The Reform Party

Posted on September 3, 2016 by kireschneider

14448890_1079584818757448_4798130627896402884_n

“Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s…”

Source:The New Democrat

Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no Reform Party USA today. Why, because what is the Reform Party and what’s the point of it? The Reform Party is what the Republican Party use to be and what they believed in. Before they recruited the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right out of the Democratic Party and into the GOP. They use to believe in fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, strong but limited national defense and foreign policy that’s not designed to police the world and they were tolerant or federalist on social issues. Not believing that the Federal Government or government in general, should be used to tell how Americans should live their own lives and make their personal decisions for them. That was the GOP of the 1960s that Dwight Eisenhower essentially created in the 1950s, that Tom Dewey tried to create in the 1940s. That also had a growing conservative-libertarian wing in it led by Barry Goldwater and others.

If Donald Trump takes down the Republican Party in November and they lose the House as well as the Senate and he decides to take his movement with him and perhaps launches a new third-party and perhaps some nationalist party, the Reform Party could become relevant for the first time since Ross Perot launched this movement in the early 1990s. Along with the Libertarians and this is how the Republican Party could become a national party again that can win the presidency, because it would have the members and voters, to compete for the presidency and not need gerrymandered House districts to hold a majority in the House. Or low turnout elections to win a majority in the Senate, because again they would have the voters to be able to compete with Democrats everywhere. Or perhaps the GOP dies and the Reform Party emerges as the new Center-Right party in America. And brings in Libertarians and Northeastern Conservative Republicans.

The Reform Party, to me at least represents the Republican Party when it wasn’t owned by the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. A party where the Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right European-American nationalist groups, didn’t feel at home in. Because it was a big-tent party that welcomed African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jewish-Americans, women, Catholics, immigrants, etc. Where it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and yes even Barry Goldwater. Not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Donald Trump, or the Tea Party. A party that could not only competed in the Northeast with moderate-conservative Republicans, but in the Midwest and the West with Conservative-Libertarians and even California, but in the South as well. And could win high turnout elections, because it had the members and voters to compete everywhere with the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case for the GOP today.

Posted in Independents, The New Democrat, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Why Republicans Should Vote Libertarian

Posted on September 2, 2016 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Why should Republicans should vote Libertarian this election? Well why should Conservative Republicans and my mean Conservative-Libertarian Republicans vote Libertarian this election? Because the Republican nominee is a big government Republican. Who couldn’t care less about the Constitution if it limits his power, who was once a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat on social issues, before we had an African-American president. And the Democratic nominee is a Progressive Democrat who would raise taxes on the wealthy and has big government leaning when it comes to national security and civil liberties as it relates to the War on Terror. The Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, will be on the ballot in all fifty-states. If the entire Never Tump in movement in the Republican Party goes to Gary Johnson and gets in the debates, voting against Donald Trump, doesn’t necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is the next president. You could prevent both Hillary and The Donald, from winning the Electoral College and perhaps nominating Gary as president in the House of Representatives.

If you’re a Republican who believes that there’s too much power with the Federal Government and not enough power with the states and with individuals, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, is you’re only choice. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both believe in fiscal responsibility, low taxes and decentralization of government. They’re also against big government all together and don’t want to take big government out of the economy it put it in people’s homes. So the Christian-Right, doesn’t have much interest in voting for the Johnson-Weld ticket. Nor does big government national security Neoconservatives, or the Alt-Right, who represents the entire Far-Right in America. But the Republican Party at it’s core is still a party that believes in economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government. And even if you don’t go with Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, that doesn’t necessarily mean you want government to enforce your cultural values on the rest of the country. And force everyone else to live the same way.

The case against Donald Trump and for the Libertarian Party, is a case in favor of limited government . And against someone who believes he should have all the power and tells people he’ll fix all of their problems for them, if he has no opposition and no one questions anything that he does. It’s a case against big government and right-wing authoritarian fascism, against Vladimir Putin. And a case in favor of limited government and checks and balances. That the executive can’t do everything on their own. That we have a Congress, judiciary and two-party system for good reasons. Because we can’t afford to trust one person and generally one party to govern this huge diverse country by themselves. You don’t have 17 presidential candidates and a divided Republican Party, no way Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee for president. And perhaps The Donald runs as an Independent or starts a nationalist party or something. But he is there presidential nominee and Conservative-Libertarians have a better option for president.

Posted in Reason, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FOX News: ‘The Rise of The Alt-Right Movement’

Posted on September 1, 2016 by Rik Schneider

The rise of the alt-right movementSource:FOX News– interviewing Alt-Right leader Jared Taylor.

Source:The New Democrat

“Conservative movement embraces the Trump campaign; Doug McKelway takes a closer look for ‘Special Report'”

From FOX News

Jared Taylor: “We think America as an identity. People who are descendent from the founding stock, have a right to resist this possession.” He was talking about some theory that America basically belongs to anyone who can get here, regardless from who they are and where they come from. And he obviously disagrees with that.

You don’t have to take my word when you hear someone call Mr. Taylor what’s called a White Nationalist. Not my term, but that’s for the folks that term is for, which is for people who believe that America belongs to the Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other Northern Europeans. Not to everyone else.

What is the Alt-Right in America and what the hell is it doing linked with the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump?

The Republican Party that is supposed to be the Center-Right party in America and the party of Lincoln, the party of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed the African slaves in America, instead of calling for them to be deported back to Africa or even murdered. Which is what segments of the Alt-Right in America like the KKK have called for. That is the subject of this piece and since this movement is linked to the GOP nominee for president Donald Trump, it’s time to talk about this.

The Al-Right, is a collection of European-American, primarily Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent German-American nationalist groups. Almost exclusively believe that America belongs to Protestants who come from Britain and Northern Europe originally, west of Scandinavia. They aren’t just anti-African or anti-Latino or anti-Middle Eastern or anti-Asian. They’re anti-Jewish, they’re anti-Slav, they’re anti-Mediterranean and even anti-Catholic. Regardless of the person’s ethnicity or race. The Alt-Right are predominantly men and see women as their pets.

The Democratic Party, has the Far-Left, or New-Left (if you want to be nice) but the Republican Party has their own fringe movement as well. The Far-Right which again are Northern-European Protestant-American Nationalists, who see America as only belonging to them. And everyone else as Un-American who don’t have a right to exist in the United States.

So why would the Republican presidential nominee want to have anything to do with people like this?

Why would Steve Bannon who runs an Alt-Right publication like Breitbart, be associated with his campaign?

Why does Donald Trump, say things and take policy positions that get endorsed by Alt-Rightists like Ann Coulter and even David Duke?

I’ve argued before that Donald Trump doesn’t even want to be President of the United States, or doesn’t have much of an idea how to become president. Which would explain why he would take this route to the presidency since the Alt-Right represents a small and even shrinking population in America.

But the Trump Campaign, whatever you think of it, does represent forgotten Americans in this country. Who are predominantly Caucasian, Protestant, Catholic and male. People who believe America is going downhill since the 1960s when multiculturalism became mainstream and America started to become the giant melting pot that we are today.

Not saying that all Trump supporters are Alt-Rightists, but those people are not just part of his base, but now part of his campaign. Which is why The Donald is now losing Republican men and women, who are conservative even, but aren’t racists. And true Conservatives aren’t racist or bigoted anyway.

The Trump Campaign represents the America of the 1950s and Donald Trump is selling a recipe and saying that he can return this America to his supporters. Where English-Americans and Protestants and men from these groups, essentially ran America, with everyone else essentially serving as the servants of these people.

Even if Donald Trump is not a racist and bigot himself, he’s guilty of trying to sell Americans a vision that he can’t create and produce. And asking his supporters to pay up front whether The Donald has any real plan and ability to deliver what he’s selling. Donald Trump, is not a politician, but a liar and demagogue, which is even worst. And his voters are buying spoiled meat upfront as a result.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Understanding Society: Daniel Little: Liberalism and Hate-Based Extremism

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Derik Schneider

“Liberalism and Hate-Based Extremism With all due respect to Daniel Little and I am …”

Source:The New Democrat

With all due respect to Daniel Little and I am going to respond to what he said in his own piece, because he did make some good points about liberalism, but this is really a response to what CNN pro-Donald Trump political analyst Jeff Lord, had said about the KKK, being the military wing of the Democratic Party. And saying that Liberals and Democrats, are responsible for slavery and racism to non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Americans in America.

From the start of the Democratic Party that Thomas Jefferson created two-hundred years ago, up until the 1970s and the 1980s, the Democratic Party had a southern right-wing in it. They were called Dixiecrats and were people who believed that Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, were superior to all other races in America, especially superior to African-Americans and American-Indians. They created the KKK and other European-American nationalist groups in America. Who saw their mission as defending Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxon Protestants, from people they saw as Un-American and even as animals. They owned the African slaves in the 1700s and 1800s. And it took the American Civil War of the 1960s to end slavery in America. And forced Dixiecrats to give up their slaves who were kidnapped from their native Africa. So to say today’s Democratic Party a party that is made up of Liberals, Progressives and now even Social Democrats, (thanks to Bernie Sanders) is responsible for slavery and other forms of bigotry in America, is nonsense. (To be nice about it)

Remember Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy of 1968 and the early 1970s, well if you weren’t born yet of course you don’t. But Dick Nixon wasn’t recruiting southern progressive and liberal Democrats, to vote for him and join the Republican Party. He recruited right-wing Dixiecrats, who were still a large part of the Democratic Party back then, to vote for him and vote Republican. Where they’ve remained ever since. The Republican Party is not the party of slavery and racism. (At least not historically) The Democratic Party that backed slavery and racism back in the day, no longer exists. The Dixiecrats are now Dixiereps, or Dixielics, but they’re right-wing Republicans today. People like Strom Thurmond and his followers who once was a Dixiecrat, but then moved to Republican Party over the civil rights debates in the 1960s. Along with his followers and Southern right-wing politicians that came after him. Like Trent Lott, who served in Congress for 34 years both House and Senate. Phil Gramm, again another long time member of Congress in both chambers. Was once a Democrat and today is a Republican. Senator Dick Shelby today, was once a Dixiecrat and now is a Republican Senator from Alabama.

As far as what Daniel Little said about liberalism and extremism. I agree with him, because Liberals believe people have the right to believe whatever they believe and even express their beliefs at will. Short of falsely libeling, threatening violence against people, or inciting violence in general. Where Liberals draw the line is how people interact with each other. You can think whatever you want about someone, but we don’t believe you have the right to hurt someone simply because you don’t like them, or disagree with them, or even see them as a bigot. Or hurt innocent people in general from your own actions whether they’re intentional or unintentional. Mr. Little, gave an excellent and clear definition of liberalism there. The title of this piece might sound like Mr. Little and myself are implying that liberalism is hate-based extremism, which of course is false. What he did and I’m doing here is laying out the liberal position when it comes to extremism and the right for even bigots to believe what they believe. And everyone has the right to free speech in America.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Euro News: Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream Speech

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Derik Schneider

28681970044_5df9215b65_o

The New Democrat

“I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.” Dr. Martin Luther King, the leader of the African-American civil and equal rights movement of the 1960s. Not the only leader, but the leader as far as his importance and what he accomplished for that community. And I’m just quoting what he said in his 1963 March on Washington in his I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King, at the very least wanted an America where his family and the African-American community, would no longer be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Even if he didn’t mean that for America as a whole, lets apply it to the rest of the country anyway. Lets create an America where individuals are judged simply as that. As individuals and not members of this group or any other group. But simply as people and what they have to offer and where they come up short simply as individuals. That is what the vision of a color and race-blind country would be.

Whether someone is racist towards one race of American or another, they’re still racists. If you judge people simply by their race and decide they should be denied access in America simply because of their race, even if you’re attentions are good, you’re guilty of racism. No matter what race you’re a member of and what race or races you intend to benefit and what race or races you seek to deny. That is the opposite of a color and race-blind country. That is not Dr. King’s dream, but the exact opposite of it. How well and how better off would we be as a country if racism and other forms of bigotry, whether they’r targeted against people simply because of their ethnicity religion, gender, or sexuality. We’re not talking about levels of poverty that we are today if racism is simply not part of the picture. Because no one would be denied schools and employment, simply because of their race or any other characteristic that’s part of their DNA. And to say that this group of Americans has been denied access because of their race, now we have to benefit those people by denying other races, is also racism. But from a different direction.

Racism even if it’s used to benefit other groups at the expense of different groups, is still racism. And goes against Dr. King’s dream of a color and race-blind country. What we should do instead is make Dr. King’s dream a reality. And outlaw the use of racism when it’s used to deny any American access, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality. Whether it comes from the private sector or government. And instead don’t automatically notice one’s complexion when you first seem them and think they must be this way, because this is how they look. But instead see a person and someone you can either get along with and work with or not, because of how you individually relate with each other as people, but because of how you were born and how you look. That I believe is the America that Dr. King wanted. An America that worked for everybody based on what you did for it and what you did for yourself to make yourself the most productive and successful person you can be. But not because of how you were born and your racial characteristics.

Posted in Dr. MLK, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ABC News: World News Tonight-Colin Kaepernick Refuses to Stand During National Anthem

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Erik Schneider

Source:The Daily Review

In life there are followers and there are leaders. There are trend-setters who would be leaders and there are people who follow whatever the latest trend is who would be faddists. Celebrity culture and pro sports is no different, is a very accurate reflection of this. Celebrities feel the need to be cool to the point they’ll follow things and claim to support things that in many cases they don’t even seem to understand. Ben Affleck, from a couple years ago where he essentially accused Bill Maher of being a racist, because Maher made critical, but accurate statements about Islam, is a perfect example of this. Even though Islam is not a race, but a religion and Muslims can be anyone of any race, since Islam is not a race, but a religion. With today’s social media and broader media culture, things can become hot and go or go viral, in an instant. And when that happens, many celebrities feel the need to be associated with it even if they don’t understand what they’re associating with. Colin Kaepernick, to me at least seems like the latest celebrity faddist and getting on the Black Lives Matter train.

This is not a debate about whether there’s racism and bigotry, as well as oppression in America. Because of course there is and we’ve had as a nation more that two-hundred years of it. This to me is a debate about whether a multi-millionaire San Francisco 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick, is the right spokesperson to address this issue. Who’ll be paid eleven-million-dollars by the 49ers this season to be there starting QB. A man who has taken advantage of every opportunity he’s had in America as an individual to live in freedom and become filthy rich. Oppression in America, again goes back more than two-hundred years starting with American-Indians. And then Africans being kidnapped from Africa and brought over to be the slaves of European-Americans who the land of the American-Indians. To women of all races not having the right to vote in America until a hundred-years ago. To Jewish and other European immigrants, being denied access in America by Anglo-Saxons, simply because their ethnicity and religion was different from English-Americans. To Latinos and Asians as well. With the Japanese, as well as German and Italian-Americans, being kidnapped and forced into concentration camps. Because the U.S. Government saw them as traitors during World War II.

Colin Kaepernick, has been in the NFL since 2012 and has been a millionaire his whole career. America didn’t wake up to oppression when the Black Lives Matter moment started in 2014. We’ve known about it for over two-hundred-years. That is anyone who took and passed American history in high school. Mr. Kaepernick has had all this time to let his thoughts and views be known about racism and oppression in America. And waits till now when the Black Lives Matter becomes popular and not only that, but isn’t putting himself at risk here at all. The 49ers won’t cut him over this, because standing for the national anthem is voluntary. And the City of San Francisco is a capital of fads and trends and pop culture and leftist hippies who applaud anyone who takes on anyone they see as ‘The Man.’ If Mr. Kaepernick loses his job this season, it will have nothing to do with the fact that he supposedly took a stand against oppression. But that he once again failed to perform, and the 49ers have another mediocre or bad season. And head coach Chip Kelly decides to go in a different direction as a result.

Colin Kaepernick, showed no more courage in not standing for a national anthem for a country that has given him no much opportunity as someone who is African-American, to be very successful, than millions of teenagers who bought and wore Malcolm X hats in the early 1990s when the Malcolm X movie came out. Claiming to support a man they probably never even heard of before that movie came out. And perhaps don’t have much knowledge about who Minister Malcolm is today. Someone who I have a lot of respect for an learned a lot about. What Mr. Kaepernick has done here instead is make a fashion statement. And use the national anthem of a country that’s given him so much opportunity to be as successful as he had, has his target and launching point. Which makes him not different from people who eat whatever the latest hit dish is, or where whatever outfit, or claim to be behind whatever the latest movement or celebrity is. So of course he has the Freedom of Speech (even in the NFL) to do what he did. But he’s nothing more than an opportunist when it comes to oppression and fashion statements.

Posted in ABC News, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: ‘FILE:GEORGE MCGOVERN – IRAQ/VIETNAM SAME ROAD’

Posted on July 22, 2016 by Derik Schneider

_ - 2022-11-02T170815.599

Source:CNN– 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee, George McGovern.

“George McGovern has died. To License This Clip, Click Here:CNN.”

From CNN

George McGovern

Source:The Young Turks– 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee, George McGovern.

Just to talk about Cenk Uygur’s point about Senator George McGovern speech on the Senate floor in 1972 about the Vietnam War and then I’ll get into the anti-war movement back then. I wouldn’t be surprised if the speech that Cenk was quoting from, was stricken from the Congressional Record. There reasons why Congress has certain rules of decency and decorum and why members unless they are directly speaking to each other and sharing time on the floor, aren’t allowed to talk to each other directly and are now allowed to make their points personal. The House and Senate, are partisan enough just from the members that they have and how each party disagrees with each other on so many issues. You allow both chamber’s to attack each other personally and accuse each other personally and personally question motives of other members and the institution would fall apart.

There’s a very good reason why the Democratic Party hasn’t nominated anyone as far to the Left as George McGovern since for President. 1972, Senator McGovern, wins one state, Massachusetts. Perhaps the most socialist state in the union, at least back then. Perhaps even more socialist than Vermont, the so-called Socialist Republic of Vermont. Vermont, voted for President Richard Nixon. Senator McGovern, failed to break forty-percent of even the popular vote in 1972. That is what happens when you run as Far-Left as you possibly can see what happens. You end up representing a fringe population of the country. While you lose members of your own party as well. You don’t break forty-percent of the popular vote, you’re losing 1-5 of your own party.

George McGovern’s, record in the Democratic Party and in Congress, I believe is a mostly positive one. By changing the rules in the party, the primary system and how delegates to the convention are counted and appointed, he brought in a lot more voters to the Democratic Party. Which didn’t do him much good in 72, but I think he knew he was going to lose anyway and perhaps the country wasn’t ready for a, lets say Socialist-Liberal as their President. But all of those new Latino, African-American, Asian, Jewish and other voters, to the party, it benefited Jimmy Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 96, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Which made the Democratic Party no longer dependent on the rural South, to win elections.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Posted in CNN, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Economic Policy Journal: David Gordon: ‘A Libertarian Argument for the Welfare State’

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Ederik Schneider

Left- Libertarian

Source:The New Democrat– the official slogan for the Libertarian Party.

Source:The New Democrat

“The Niskanen Center in Washington, D.C, bills itself as a “libertarian think tank:” but its conception of libertarianism is one that many of us will find surprising. Jerry Taylor, the founder and president of the Center, in an article of March 10, “Do Libertarians Want Freedom or Not?” argues that libertarians ought to be sympathetic to welfare measures and legislation that restricts freedom of association to promote civil rights.

Why should libertarians support these policies? Taylor’s argument is a simple one: libertarians want to promote liberty and these policies will do so. “If libertarianism is about advancing individual liberty, however, these aren’t acts of surrender. They are necessary prerequisites for a free society.

How can Taylor say this? The welfare state seizes people’s property in order to “help” those whom the state wishes to subsidize, and laws that forbid racial discrimination in housing and employment likewise in obvious ways restrict liberty. No doubt there are arguments for these measures, but how can these arguments belibertarian ones? Surely these arguments would have to take the form that it is justifiable to restrict libertarian rights in order to help the poor or racial minorities.”

From the Economic Policy Journal

“Learn more about social liberalism and its roots. Know what social liberals believe and why. Make sure you are prepared for your exam.

Mometrix Academy is the world’s most comprehensive test preparation company. This channel will provide you with videos that will help you learn about many different subjects.”

_ (55)

Source:Mometrix Academy– talking about social liberalism.

From the Mometrix Academy

Left-Libertarian, would be a solid way to describe my own politics I believe. I prefer Liberal or even Classical Liberal, Social Liberal even, but I’m someone whose all about individual freedom. But that it should be for everyone. That everyone should have the opportunity to achieve that and not have to live off any welfare state or private charity if just given the opportunity to live freely.

Where government has a role is not as the director of society, but as a supporter and even referee. Not to call the plays and coach the teams, but to step in when predators break the rules that hurt the innocent. So that is where I guess Left-Libertarians, or Social-Liberals and Liberals, disagree with the Ron Paul Classical Libertarians lets say. Who just want government to stay home and perhaps arrest people when take from someone else’s freedom. Or stop invaders when they invade the country.

The Left-Libertarian argument for the welfare state or what I prefer is the safety net, is that poverty is a real threat against freedom. And it keeps people down trapped away from freedom. So what you can do with a social insurance system is to help those people in the short-term and prevent them from having to deal with the worst forms of poverty like homelessness. As well as help them get on their feet and live in freedom and not off of taxpayers.

A real safety net promotes freedom for everyone else, because you’re creating new taxpayers and real consumers with real resources to consume the products that are made by the private market. Which creates good jobs for everyone involved.

This is not an argument for a big centralized superstate where states and localities become almost non-relevant, or high taxes across the board. That discourages individual freedom and individualism. Just an insurance system for people who truly need it to help them achieve freedom as well.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Steve Allen Show: Diana Dors: Hooray For Love (1960)

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Erik Schneider
Scott Rogers_ The Steve Allen Show- Diana Dors_ Hooray For Love in 1960 (1)

Source:Scott Rogers– English Muffin Diana Dors, on The Steve Allen Show, in 1960.

Source:The Daily Review

“It’s only been 10 years of waiting for a decent copy of this video to show up, and Wa La, here it is. This is the full 6 minutes of Diana Dors on the Steve Allen Show. Her song and dance starts 3 minutes in. “Hooray For Love” was written in 1948 by Harold Arlen and Lee Robin. The original airing date was March 28th 1960. For my American friends that might not know who Diana Dors is, she was the UK’s answer to Marilyn Monroe, married to actor and game show host Richard Dawson. (Hogan’s Heroes and Family Feud)

The original video was very dark. It’s been repaired using every video tool I have, but the lighting still comes and goes. All in all it came out pretty good. *The audio track is remastered in simulated stereo.”

Diana Dors

Source:The Daily Review– English Muffin Diana Dors, on The Steve Allen Show, in 1960.

From Scott Rogers 

It’s simply not possible for me to see too much of Diana Dors right now and believe me I’ve tried. If I don’t get over this compulsion fairly soon I might seek professional help.

Diana along with Anita Ekberg, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, Shelley Winters, are my favorite not just Golden Age Hollywood Goddess’s right now, but my favorite Hollywood Goddess’s right now. Add Angie Dickinson, Marilyn Monroe and Kim Novak to that list. Diana, was so adorable with a hot baby-face, English accent and personality to match.

I’ve seen The Run For Doom which is her Alfred Hitchcock Hour episode from 1962, probably twenty times now. And it’s a very good show, but she makes it great. Simply because of her performance on it. Her presence on it is simply overwhelming by the way she moves and her adorable facial expressions. But keep in mind she was a hell of a lot more than a baby-face goddess with a great voice and personality. She was a hell of an actress and a very funny performer as well. She reminds me a lot of Shelley Winters as far as personality and comedic timing.

Diana could make serious parts look funny and keep people staring at her with her with her add living. Again watch The Run For Doom. Or be the funniest person in the room when you let her go off the cuff. Like she did with Bob Hope, Steve Allen and many others.

As far as Hooray For Love, again Diana had many talents. She played a singer nightclub singer/gold digger in The Run For Doom. And in this performance she’s singing Hooray For Love on The Steve Allen Show, (Got me for who that show was named after)

Great face, great voice, great body on a 5’6 frame. Tall and curvy, but definitely not too tall and I just wish she lived a lot longer and had a much longer career. Because she was so special.

Posted in Baby Di, Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment