Salon: Aaron R. Hanlon: 'They're The Politically Correct: Ben Carson and Bill O'Reilly Are The Real Intolerant Speech Police'

Source:The New Democrat

To point out about political correctness policies by Ben Carson who apparently wants to ban language on campus that he sees as Un-American, just points out the fact that political correctness fascism, (and that’s exactly what it is) is bipartisan. But no way does it defend the Far-Left from trying to ban criticism of Muslims and Islam in general. It just makes the sophomoric argument, “that we might do it. But so do they. We might be bad, but they suck worse.” Not exactly a crowd pleaser and inspirational argument that brings people to your side.

At best you might get people to decide on choosing the lesser of two evils. The problem with that is that you’re still choosing evil. Just a lesser evil, but still evil. “You want me to break your back, or do you want permanent brain damage?” Okay, you don’t like that. How about a choice between going blind, or going death? All right fine. How about I break your arm, or your leg, but I won’t break both?” Because those are the kinds of choices you have when picking between two evils. Fascism on the Right, or fascism on the Left. How about neither!

Political correctness fascism from either the Right or Left, still fascism. And try to say one is worst than the other, how about we not have that argument. Instead of arguing who was a worst dictator, Joe Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, how about we have an argument about who is the better president, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. And just because one side does it when it comes to political correctness, doesn’t excuse the other side when they do it. It just means that we had anti-free speech radicals on both sides. Who’ll fight like hell for their right to free speech. As they try to crush the other side’s rights.

“Dad, I cheated on that test, but so did five other students.” That wouldn’t impress my father and imagine most fathers and probably most mothers as well. All that does it show you that cheating was a problem on that test. And when you point out examples of political correctness on the other side, it just points out that political correctness is a bipartisan problem. But it doesn’t excuse either side. Political correctness, is illiberal fascism, whether it comes from the Left or Right. Actually, all fascism is illiberal. Meaning not liberal. Which is why this blog constantly points out the importance of free speech. And all believers of free speech Right and Left, should always fight against fascism.

Radical Films: Let it Burn: The Coming Destruction of The USA? (1968)

Source:The New Democrat

It’s good to hear a prominent African-American leader support the Right to Self-Defense. Especially with Robert Williams being on the New-Left, or Far-Left in America and a self-described Communist. And I say that, because if there’s one large population in America that has suffered a lot of violence and abuse against them, it’s the African-American community in America. If there’s one community that deserves that right more than anyone else, it would be this community. And I tend to fall on the side of the Martin King social democratic wing of the civil rights movement. But its easy to see why people who have suffered so much against them, would want and need the Right to Self-Defense.

The civil rights movement in America, was multi-racial and multi-political as far as ideology. You had a pacifist social democratic wing in it. Led by Dr. King and his organization. You had a liberal wing that was always talking about self-empowerment and empowering African-Americans to take control of their lives. That also believed in the Right to Self-Defense, led by Malcolm X. And you had a New-Left wing, Communist even, that believed in Black Power and part of that power was using violence against violence and self-protection and defense. Led by the Black Panther Party and many other groups on the New-Left in America.

It sounds like to me that Rob Williams, became more radical as he left America for Cuba in the 1960s. He was President of the NAACP in North Carolina. The NAACP, is a mainstream center-left organization. That is about racial-equality and other issues. It is not a group of Socialists and Communists by in large. And perhaps Williams got tired of all the violence and racism that he was seeing in America and believed he was being persecuted by the U.S. Government. And decided that he needed to change his politics and needed a different approach to take on racism in America and push for racial-equality.

Daniel J.B. Mitchell: Campus Unrest at UCLA in The Late 1960s

Source:Daniel J.B. Mitchell- Professor Angela Davis.

Source:The New Democrat

If the reason for UCLA or the State of California for firing Professor Angela Davis was because she threatened the administration at UCLA and called for mass-violence, etc, then that would be one thing and they would have real reason to fire her. But that wasn’t why she was fired, at least from everything that I’ve seen so far. She was back then at least a self-described Communist who was teaching philosophy at UCLA. Who was calling for the release of men that she saw as political prisoners in California state prisons.

The 1960s was a crazy radical time. Especially compared with the very conservative establishment status-quo decade of the 1950s culturally. And by 1968 or 69 and perhaps especially in California where radical leftist movements tend to get started, it was even more so. And it looked like the country might be falling apart over Vietnam and other cultural issues. The emergence of the New-Left that Professor Davis was obviously was part of is now on the scene. And they want to take America apart and create a different type of country. That is more collectivist and communitarian and even socialist and less individualistic.

1966 was the exception to this social revolutionary period in California. Where Mr. Status Quo Establishment Conservative Ronald Reagan is elected Governor of California. And one of the first things that he does as Governor in 1967 is take on the campus radicals in California. And goes a step forward and takes on a radical professor in Angela Davis and has her fired at UCLA. California takes it a step forward than that and tries to make a criminal out of her and get her sent to prison. And charge her with a court shooting in the Oakland area that she wasn’t part of. When you take on the establishment, they can hit you back. Which is what happened to Angela Davis.
Source:Daniel J.B. Mitchell

Al Jazeera: Inside USA: Angela Davis on The Prison Industrial Complex

Source:The New Democrat

Just to talk about this interview for a minute or less, depending on how fast you read. I guess Al Jazeera didn’t think the interviewer was important enough to give out his name. Because I have no idea whose the guy who interviewed Professor Davis on this show. Also this was not what you would call a hard-hitting interview. (Baseball season is close) This was an interview where the two people in it share the same views and where their minds are already made up. The interviewer asked leaning questions to get the person being interviewed to back up what they already think and know. Which is their right of course and opinionated journalism certainly exists. Especially on ideologically leaning news networks like Al Jazeera.

Having said all of that, I agree with Angela Davis when it comes to the prison industrial complex. America being this great liberal democracy that we are, locks up too many people in this country. And part of that has to do with the facts that we arrest send people to prison for too many things. When sending them to even county jail for a shorter sentence, or getting them in halfway houses for non-drug addicted non-violent offenders, or drug rehab for drug offenders, would be a much better more cost-effective way of dealing with people with these conditions.

And another reason why we lock up more people than anyone else and a lot of people on the Left especially the Far-Left aren’t going to want to hear this, we have a lot more dangerous criminals per-capita and in total numbers than anyone else. I mean if you look at some of our super-max and other maximum security prisons, you would be able to see that the inmates who are there, are exactly where they need to be. But that doesn’t excuse how we treat people who aren’t dangerous in this country. And I’m not talking about so-called economic terrorists who steals people’s money by using cons and other scams. But drug offenders meaning users and other low-level non-violent offenders like car thieves. Offenders like that who don’t need to be in prison.

So based on this we need a criminal justice and prison system in this country. You want to live in anarchy, be my guess, but you won’t do it in America. But we need one that treats hard-core criminals for exactly what they are. As threats to society who need to be in prison and then after they are there they need to be treated in a humane responsible way that protect society and people in prison. But also prepares them for life on the outside, assuming they aren’t serving life without. While we come up with a smarter and more responsible system for how we treat low-level non-violent offenders in America.

CNN: Angela Davis On Buchanan/Braden (1984)

Source:CNN- New-Left Communist political activist Angela Davis, on Buchanan/Braden, in 1984.

Source:The New Democrat

“Angela Davis on Buchanan/Braden. Strange debate circa 1984." 

From Mike Gardner

Good to hear the so-called Liberal or Progressive on this show, (which of course would’ve been Tom Braden. If you were thinking, Pat Buchanan, you must be as high as a kite on something illegal right now.) but good to hear the so-called Liberal or Progressive on this show critique and question communism. You don’t get much of that today from so-called Liberals and Progressives (who are actually closeted Socialists) who really aren’t and much further Left than that to the point they would Democratic Socialists or even Communists themselves today.

To Angela Davis’s credit, she gave up communism in I believe the 1990s and calls herself a Socialist and I believe Democratic Socialist today. Politically she has more in common with Senator Bernie Sanders than President Fidel Castro of the Communist Republic of Cuba. Her ideas are still roughly the same and probably her politics hasn’t changed at all. Except that she no longer embraces communism and would like to see a democratic form of socialism in America. And as Americans tend to get older, we tend to get less radical and moderate more. Even if we start out on the Far-Left like Angela Davis.

As far as outlawing racism, which is what Angela Davis said she was in favor of: I wish they went into that deeper to find out what she means by that. If she’s talking about hate crimes and acts of discrimination by denying people access because of their race, that is already illegal in America. If she’s actually talking about outlawing racist thought and speech and groups even if they don’t commit racist crimes, then that would unconstitutional and a form of fascism: “Toe the party-line and believe and communicate the way we do, or we’ll throw you in jail.” That is un-liberal democratic and shouldn’t be tolerated in America.

AP Archive: Angela Davis- Radical on Trial

Source:Associated Press-

Source:The New Democrat

Angela Davis should’ve never have been in jail, at least for what she was charged with here. Which was being involved in a Marin County court-house shootout in 1970. They had nothing on her other than the fact that she was legally involved and helping people who were accused in the case, like George Jackson. This was about the California establishment trying to take down a women that they were terrified of. Because she was fighting against racism, the prison industrial complex and wanted a different type of government and economic system. That was different from America’s liberal democratic capitalist system.

And to show you that California had nothing on Professor Davis, just look at the fact that she was found innocent. Even though I doubt she had the personal resources that she would’ve needed to defend herself. But had such a large following and different groups that wanted to help her, she was able to get the defense that she needed and deserved. I’m not a Socialist or Communist obviously. Just read this blog on a regular basis if you’re still not convinced. But I wish there were more Angela Davis’s today regardless of race or gender. People who are willing to take on the prison industrial complex that benefits so many wealthy people and business’s at the expense of everyone else. And will risk their freedom to fight the system.

California didn’t try to put Angela Davis away because she was a criminal, terrorist or did any other illegal activities. They tried to put her away because of her political views and what she was fighting for. Which was a different type of government and economic system for America. Which I would’ve opposed her on, but she has every right as a an American to advocate for it. As well as fighting against the prison industrial complex that puts non-violent offenders away for long periods of time. For committing minor offenses mostly on the so-called War on Drugs and things like shoplifting. It was fascists in California that tried to put Angela away simply because of her political views.
Source:AP Archive

Free Angela Davis (2013)

Source:The New Democrat

Freedom of speech in America is not about the right to say things that most of the country already agrees with. Or the right to be friendly, or the right say non-controversial things that people don’t necessarily agree or disagree with, but haven’t thought much about. But freedom of speech is exactly that, the freedom to speak freely. Even if it may intend to offend others. Which is why I’m so against political correctness in America, whether its practiced by the Far-Left or Far-Right. And will defend the Far-Left’s and Far-Right’s ability to speak freely as best as I can. Because political correctness is illiberal and Un-Liberal Democratic. Because it is a form of fascism.

That is exactly what this movie, Free Angela is about. One women’s struggle a UCLA professor in Angela Davis who got that position in her mid-twenties, not just her age, but a young African-American women in the late 1960s early 70s getting such an important position as a great school like UCLA. And she was in a fight for her life to be able to speak against injustice in her community and America as a whole. And even use provocative if not extreme far-left rhetoric to express how she felt about America and the state of the African-American community. She didn’t and doesn’t still have the right to express her feelings about these issues because a lot of people agree with her. But simply because she’s an American with the right to free speech.

And then throw in the fact that she was a Communist back then and even though she’s given up communism since and is a Democratic Socialist today, but back in the late 1960s and early 70s she was a Communist in the heart of the Cold War and she offended too many people. And the establishment in California decided that they can’t have a young African-American women with that much power, that big of a platform and that big of a following loose on the streets. And came up with a bogus case to put her away in jail. Ultimately the good guys and gals won this case and Angela Davis was free in I believe 1971. But she should’ve never of had to go through that as an innocent person.

I’m not defending Professor Davis’s communist and now socialist views. Simply her constitutional right to express them, as a Liberal Democrat myself. I’m not nearly that far to the Left as a center-left Liberal and not a Socialist, but we do agree on the prison industrial complex. Which simply needs to be destroyed and replaced with a responsible and sensible criminal justice policy in this country. If we want to remain a liberal free society. But again Socialists on the Far-Left have as much right to express themselves in America, as Christian-Theocrats and Neoconservatives on the Far-Right. The constitutional right to be heard and express yourself. And that to me at least is what Professor Davis’s case was about.

David Hoffman: 'What The 1960s Did To America'

Source:The New Democrat

The 1960s was truly a revolution for American culture and politics. We go from a very conservative collectivist period from the 1940s and 50s to a period where all sorts of groups of Americans were standing up and demanding their freedom. And the freedom to live their own lives for the very first time in their lives. And from that sense at least the 1960s was a very positive time with so many new Americans now wanting and obtaining freedom over their own lives. And a bad time for the conservative establishment that wanted to keep things as is.

The 1960s you have the civil rights movement which was very positive. And not just for African-Americans, but for Latin-Americans, women of all races and ethnicities, as well as gays. And for Americans of all backgrounds now being able to live their own lives the way they want to. And no longer feeling the need or having to live the lives of their parents and grandparents. The 1960s you also have the anti-war movement which led to America finally seeing that the Vietnam War was wrong and that we couldn’t win it.

The negative aspects of the 1960s was of course the violence. We lost two great political leaders in John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. We lost two great civil rights leaders in Martin L. King and Malcolm X. The rise of crime in that decade, the rioting and division of that decade. Things fifty-years later we’re still going through and haven’t recovered from. But revolutions tend not to be all peaceful. There tends to be some casualties in revolutions and the 1960s was no exception to that.

We go from a very stagnant and status quo decade of the 1950s to a revolutionary decade of the 1960s. Where not a lot of new things seemed extreme, except to the establishment that again wanted to keep things as is. Because they benefited most from that America and also believed that was the way for all Americans to live. And if America had to do all over again I believe it would and that it would’ve needed to be done. Because of all the Americans who were denied freedom in America simply because of who they were.

David Hoffman: 'Hippies Remember The Glory Days'

Source:David Hoffman- one of the women from David Hoffman's video.

Source:The New Democrat

“To support my efforts to create more clips please donate to me at:AIIINADay. I am very proud of the TV series I made for PBS called Making Sense of the Sixties. I had the chance to spend a year examining my youth and how I became an active member of the 60s generation. If you are from that generation or a child of the 60s, I think you would find the entire series of value…

From David Hoffman

If you are familiar with leftist publications like Salon, The Nation, The American Prospect, AlterNet, TruthOut and I’m sure I’ve left some other out and the Occupy Wall Street movement and what is left of it today, go back to the 1960s and you’ll see where the members of that movement come from today. Students For A Democratic Society, the counter-culture movement and the anti-war movement and even anti-capitalist and wealth movement of the 1960s are the parents and grandparents of the Occupy today.

They were called the New Left back and people with this really far-leftist mindset at least in America are still the New Left today. People who were not only against the Vietnam War which a lot of the country who was a lot more politically mainstream back then was also against. But they were against the liberal democratic establishment in general. Not the Democratic Party necessarily, but the liberal values that govern America then and today and what the country was founded on. Mostly as it related to our military, law enforcement and foreign policy, but also our economic and political systems.

The New Left coming of age in college in the 1960s decided they didn’t like America at least how the country was governed and founded. And put together a movement to not only get us out of the Vietnam War, which I would’ve been against back then as well as today. But they wanted to destroy our system and how our country is governed. And replace it with something a lot more social democratic, that is the democrats who were in this group. I mean if you look at Occupy today and then look at the New Left of the 1960s, they are the same people ideologically and culturally and believe in the same things.

Salon: Fred Jerome: 'Let's Nationalize Fox News, Imagining a Very Different Media'

Source: Salon Magazine- FNC's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly & Megyn Kelly.

Source:The New Democrat

Imagine a country where the state meaning the central government controlled all the news and media. I know in the 21st Century that is very hard to imagine with so much of the world moving in a least in a Democratic direction if not a liberal democratic direction. And even countries in the Middle East and not just Turkey and Israel can people there get access to non-state-owned media and Saudi Arabia is one of them thanks to satellite TV, the internet and smart phones.

So this is really not possible anymore, but let’s say somehow the United States nationalized the media here at least the domestic media. And now you have the Federal Government with the National Security Agency and everything else now in control of even more information. And who get’s to see it and when. Even if you can forget about the fact that this would be unconstitutional because of our first amendment. Meaning this could and would never happen.

All of that power and information inside of the hands of the people with the power in the country getting to decide for the most part what we can read and listen to or watch. And when we could do those things. Now if you are going to imagine these things, you might as well imagine living in jail because the same thing happens there. You can’t have a Democracy especially a liberal democracy something that is covered a lot on this blog, without Freedom of the Press and the ability for people to get the information they need to be able to managed their own lives. It is really this simple, you put the power of media in the hands of government, you get what they want you to hear, when they want you to hear it.

What I just asked you to do, was to imagine a nightmare. Unless you are a fascist and statist who is so power-hungry that you can’t imagine anyone especially not with your government and political faction having any real power of their own affairs. That you see people as stupid, who can’t control things like information and how they get it and can’t manage their own affairs. What Fred Jerome is proposing here, especially to nationalize Fox News simply because it is kicking MSNBC’s butt in ratings, is nothing more than pure leftist statism and fascism. That the Far-Left likes to accuse the Right of all the time.
Source:The Young Turks

FOX News: John Fugelsang Talking Politics (2011)

Source:FOX News- talking about Newt Gingrich For President (2012)

Source:FreeState MD 

"Comedian, actor, radio and television personality John Fugelsang appears on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" to discuss politics and The Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour." 

From Shanem FO

This is just about John Fugelang talking about American politics in 2011 and who was up and down that year. They talked about Newt Gingrich for President, who ran for President in 2011/12. And you get to hear what John Fugelsang and the rest of the panel thinks about what was going on in American politics late that year.

Mitch: Chicago 1968: The Democratic Convention

Source:Mitch- I guess this couple was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Hopefully they survived the experience.

Source:FreeState MD 

"1968 Democratic Convention special." 

From Mitch

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition, made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neo-Confederate wing of the Republican Party today. By 1968, the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the so-called Progressive Caucus in Congress that you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party now had a major, left-wing in it. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Classical Liberals on their Right and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists-Anarchists, as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today.

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two wings on the Left: The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left, people who are against war (at all costs) but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society, but would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish. 

The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties: New Democrat Liberals, the center-right, (where I am) the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them, and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names. 

And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Norman Thomas (1953)

Source:CBS News- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas.

Source:FreeState MD 

"LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH DR. NORMAN THOMAS - National Archives and Records Administration 1953-02-16 - ARC Identifier 95979 / Local Identifier LW-LW-48 - TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Hardy Burt talk with Dr. Norman Thomas, Socialist Leader, on criticism of the new Eisenhower administration policies regarding Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek, communism, bombing of Manchurian bases, recognition of the People's Republic of China, Korean truce, a third World War and world peace. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon." 

From Public Resource

What I respect about Norman Thomas (even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy) is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. 

Norman Thomas was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how it's been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far-lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world, for a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism, as if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise. 

Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war. 

Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him.

Jake Hammond: 'Students For a Democratic Society- To Change The World'

Source:Jake Hammond- welcome to black and white America.

“Here is a video I made for a Vietnam project in my history class.” 

From Jake Hammond 

If you want to compare Students For a Democratic Society today with another left-wing organization, Occupy Wall Street, Democratic Socialists of America, perhaps Community Party USA would be the closest. But except for maybe the Communists, you don’t see a militant component in the New-Left today, because most of their members are white-collar, hipster yuppies, who probably want nothing to do with jail and love their personal and economic freedom in America. And are really just part of Occupy or some other New-Left group because they think it’s the cool thing to do and this is what the cool people are doing. 

Source:Students For a Democratic Society- a 2008 SDS rally.

I actually believe as a current affairs blogger that todays Occupy Wall Street movement was born in the 1960s as part of what was called the New-Left. Because if you look at where Students For a Democratic Society were for back then and what they are trying to accomplish then and today, the end of war and that basically means all war, this movement is exactly what a person whose called a dove looks like and is.

A dove is someone who tends to take a soft approach when it comes to areas like national security and foreign policy, law enforcement, areas where government sometimes involves itself in the personal lives of individuals.

Doves were around pre-1965, but they really came alive in the 1960s with the Baby Boom Generation. And some of their kids today that is part of the New-Left who actually grew up, are part of the Occupy Wall Street movement today that’s again anti-war period. But also believes in things that Social Democrats call social justice: creating an economic system that of course is government based that would work to see that there’s economic equality throughout the country. That no one has too much and no one has too little.

The reason why the Democratic Party even has a left-wing today (or what others call Far-Left) is because of the New-Left (Socialists and Communists of the 1960s and 70s) because pre-1965 or so, the Democratic Party was made up of Center-Left Progressives, as well as Center-Right Conservatives, and even Far-Left Neo-Confederates in the South. But there weren’t Socialists in the Democratic Party for the most part back then. The New-Left changed that in the late 1960s and going into the 1970s. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

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

Tom Hayden: ‘Did Anti-War & Lifelong Democrat Tom Hayden Send Generation a Huge Message?’

Source:BBC News- Tom Hayden & Jane Fonda.

“Hayden died in his home in Santa Monica “after a lengthy illness”, the Los Angeles Times reports.

He was a member of the “Chicago seven” charged with conspiracy over anti-Vietnam war protests in 1968 and eventually acquitted.

Hayden later served in the California state assembly and Senate for nearly two decades. He was married to actress Jane Fonda between 1973 and 1990.

Born in Michigan in 1939, he became an activist during his time at the University of Michigan, where he helped to found Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

While there, he wrote a policy document called the Port Huron Statement, which he styled the “agenda for a generation.” 

From BBC News 

“DemocracyNow.org – We speak with Tom Hayden, principal author of the Port Huron statement 50 years ago, the founding document of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The statement advocated for participatory democracy and helped launch the student movement of the 1960s. Tens of thousands of copies of the 25,000-word document were printed in booklet form. The youth-led movement changed the very language of politics and its impact is still being felt today. Hayden is a longtime activist and former California state senator.” 

Source:Democracy Now- Students For a Democratic Society founder Tom Hayden.

From Democracy Now 

Every generation in America is different, but from really the founding of the American Federal Republic in the 1770s, to up to the early and mid 1960s, America was dominated by a social collectivist culture about what it meant to be an American.

And then we go through the Great Depression of the 1920s and 30s and even with that you have this generation of Americans who were born during that period (1925-41) who were growing during the Great Depression of the 1930s and then World War II during the 1940s and then the 1950s comes with America returning to prosperity, but with a generation of Silent babies who weren’t satisfied with that prosperity, who wanted more for themselves and for Americans who were left out of that prosperity, especially women and minorities.

This is the generation of Americans that Tom Hayden is from and represents as someone who was born in 1939 and grew up in the 1940s and 50s and went to college in the 1960s and lived through the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement that happened later in that decade. Who saw and viewed an America that didn’t work for everyone, especially themselves.

And then you have the Baby Boomers who came of age in the 1960s who joined this New-Left political movement that was about total equality between the races and between men and women, who were also antiwar. Who also wanted a new America, a new form of government, new economic system, to create an American socialist state that would work for everyone and even use violence in some cases to achieve those political goals.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Thom Hartmann: Mike Papantonio- 'The Decline of Broadcast News in America'

Source:Thom Hartmann- left-wing talk radio show host Mike Papantonio.

“Thom Hartmann talks with Mike Papantonio, attorney and Host of Ring of Fire Radio about the decline of broadcast news since Ronald Reagan did a way with the Fairness Doctrine and Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends… and hit that “like” button!” 

From Thom Hartmann 

If as a country, we want to have strong broadcast news divisions, then Americans have to actually watch network news. Instead of just getting all of their info from cable or online.

We live in a liberal democracy, meaning people get to see what they watch. Rather than programming being forced on them. You can’t force people to do what is in their best interest and make the best decisions for themselves in a free society. Which is what a liberal democracy is.

We have a First Amendment which includes our free press (meaning not controlled by the government) and that means our private media is owned privately. Which means our broadcast networks, including their news divisions have to make money in order to stay in business. Unlike big government propaganda agencies that you see in communist countries that are literally owned and operated by the party in power and the government.

So for hard news to be seen and read in America, Americans actually have to watch and read that news coverage, otherwise it won’t make money and put the operating budgets of news companies, including news divisions, at risk. We get all the soft news and partisan news coverage in this country, because that’s what American watch, listen to and read and what makes money in this country. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:Daily Kos- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern/Bernie Sanders of his generation.

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From the Daily Kos 

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Jospeh Hewes- Barry Goldwater vs Norman Thomas in 1961.

From Jospeh Hewes

Senator Barry Goldwater and Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas represented the intelligent way for Conservatives (like Goldwater Republicans) to debate Socialists (like Bernie Sanders) today. They layout their visions and why they believe what they believe and why they disagree with the other side. While not questioning the other’s patriotism and morality.

Source:The Daily Journal- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) was the face of classical conservatism in Congress for 30 years.

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Rage Underground: 'Guerrilla Resistance - Symbionese Liberation Army'

Source:Rage Underground- William R. Randolph Hearst in the glasses, is the father of Patrica Hearst.

"The forgotten story of the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patricia Campbell Hearst (born February 20, 1954), now known as Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw, is an American newspaper heiress, socialite, actress, kidnap victim, and convicted bank robber.

The granddaughter of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst and great-granddaughter of millionaire George Hearst, she gained notoriety in 1974 when, following her kidnapping by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), she ultimately joined her captors in furthering their cause." 

From Rage Underground

The Symbionese Liberation Army (or SLA for short) was a socialist political cult based in Northern California in the early and mid 1970s, that set down to bring down American capitalism. Which is a big reason why they kidnapped Patty Hearst who later became part of the SLA herself and bought their propaganda and so- forth and was even part of their operations and through her free will, not by force she bought into what they were trying to accomplish. 

Patrica Hearts goes from being a kidnapped victim in early 1974, to criminal by later in 1974 or by 1975. And she was only originally kidnapped because she's the daughter of Randolph Hearst, the multi- millionaire. (Perhaps billionaire in today's money) And the SLA saw Randolph Hearst as part of the problem, working for corporate America to hold average Americans down and one thing that they were trying to accomplish. 

The SLA, was to not just collect ransom from Mr. Hearst for his daughter Patty but to get extort other money from him to be used to take care of the under served in America. The SLA were Marxist Socialists/Communists, who saw American capitalism as a threat to the country and that corporate America needed to be taken down and that our country needed to start over and start a new American revolution, that was socialist, not liberal democratic.

The SLA actually did some good things, like put together food and clothing drives for the needy. The problem is they did it all through extortion. They were the classic rob Peter to pay for Paul and they were criminals, terrorists even that would attack people, including robbing banks. So they could take care of people who were left behind in society and would've been much better off. And the country would've been much better off if they were community organizers, who served the under served in America or had gotten involved in real progressive politics. Not regressive, communist, revolutionary politics.

Robert Reich: ‘Turning America Into a Giant Casino’

Source:Robert Reich- left-wing political economist and blogger Robert Reich.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Anyone who says you can get rich through gambling is a fool or a knave. Multiply the size of the prize by your chance of winning it and you’ll always get a number far lower than what you put into the pot. The only sure winners are the organizers – casino owners, state lotteries, and con artists of all kinds.

Organized gambling is a scam. And it particularly preys upon people with lower incomes – who assume they can’t make it big any other way, who often find it hardest to assess the odds, and whose families can least afford to lose the money. 

Yet America is now opening the floodgates. 

In December, the Department of Justice announced it was reversing its position that all Internet gambling was illegal. That decision is about to create a boom in online gambling. Expect high-stakes poker to be available on every work desk and mobile phone. 

Meanwhile, states are increasingly dependent on revenues from casinos, lotteries, and the “Mega Millions” game (in which 42 states pool their grand prize) to partly refill state coffers.

Given who plays, this is one of the most regressive taxes in the nation. In the most recent Mega Millions game – whose winning tickets were drawn last week and whose jackpot rose to $640 million – lottery ticket buyers shelled out some $1.5 billion, most of which went to state governments. 

And then there’s the “Jumpstart Our Business Startups” or “JOBS” Act, which President Obama is expected to sign into law Thursday. It allows so-called “crowd funding” by which people whose net worth is less than $100,000 can gamble away (invest) up to 5 percent of their annual incomes in any get-rich-quick scam (start-up) that any huckster (entrepreneur) may sell them.” 

From Robert Reich 

To respond to Robert Reich, I’m going to give you both a practical response for why we have legal organized gambling in America, as well as a philosophical one.

States (whether they’re run by Democrats or Republicans) can only tax so much. There are only so many people that can afford pay high taxes in each state. Which is one of the main facts that Socialists will probably never understand about American economics. Which means to have the high quality schools, roads, bridges, law enforcement, tourist attractions to each state, they have to have the revenue to pay for those things. Without business, workers, and money in the economy and not in the government’s, government would never have the revenue to pay for the services that every developed economy has. 

My philosophical argument for organized gambling in America: there has yet to be a government anywhere in the world that is more qualified to make the personal and economic decisions for the individuals, than the individuals themselves. With any life comes at least a certain amount of risk (at least in a free society) otherwise life wouldn’t be worth living for most of us. The way to reduce risk in a free society is through regulation and taxation, not prohibition, which doesn’t work. Just look at the War On Drugs or prostitution.

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger'

Source:Mox News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger"  

From Anon Saint

Source:Mox News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement. I’m not sure he has much credibility on the issue. Bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog)