The Film Archives: Nicholas Patler- 'Jim Crow and The Wilson Administration: An Enduring Legacy'

Source: The Film Archives- The American Civil War?

Source:The Daily View

"Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat elected from New Jersey, but he was the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period. He appointed Southerners to his Cabinet. Some quickly began to press for segregated workplaces, although Washington, D.C., and federal offices had been integrated since after the Civil War. In 1913, for instance, Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo – an appointee of the President – was heard to express his opinion of black and white women working together in one government office: "I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines?"[13]

Wilson introduced segregation in federal offices, despite much protest from African-American leaders and groups. He appointed segregationist Southern politicians because of his own firm belief that racial segregation was in the best interest of black and European Americans alike.[14] At Gettysburg on July 4, 1913, the semi-centennial of Abraham Lincoln's declaration that "all men are created equal", Wilson addressed the crowd:

How complete the union has become and how dear to all of us, how unquestioned, how benign and majestic, as state after state has been added to this, our great family of free men![15]

In sharp contrast to Wilson, a Washington Bee editorial wondered if the "reunion" of 1913 was a reunion of those who fought for "the extinction of slavery" or a reunion of those who fought to "perpetuate slavery and who are now employing every artifice and argument known to deceit" to present emancipation as a failed venture.[15] One historian notes that the "Peace Jubilee" at which Wilson presided at Gettysburg in 1913 "was a Jim Crow reunion, and white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible master of ceremonies."[15] (See also: Great Reunion of 1913)

In Texas, several towns adopted residential segregation laws between 1910 and the 1920s. Legal strictures called for segregated water fountains and restrooms.[15] Jim Crow laws were a product of what became the solidly Democratic South. White Southern Democrats, exploiting racial fear, attacking the corruption (real or perceived) of Reconstruction Republican governments, and suppressing the black vote by violence and intimidation, had taken over state governments in the South in the 1870s and essentially dominated them for nearly 100 years. They disenfranchised most blacks through voter registration laws and new constitutions by the end of the nineteenth century. In 1956, Southern resistance to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education resulted in a resolution called the Southern Manifesto. It was read into the Congressional Record and supported by 96 Southern Congressmen and senators, all but two of them Southern Democrats."

From The Film Archives

Woodrow Wilson is a mix bag to me, because he is the father of American liberal internationalism: this idea that America should always be strong and fight authoritarianism around the world ( even if we promote it at home ) and work with our allies around the world to defend liberal democracy and fight against authoritarianism. Whether it's communism, or religious theocracy, monarchy, nationalism, whatever the authoritarian philosophy might be. Which has been the governing foreign policy inside the Democratic Party going all the way though the Barack Obama Administration. George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign might be the only exception to this. So on this score I give President Woodrow Wilson very high marks.

President Woodrow Wilson was also an economic Progressive: he believed in things like a public safety net things like Unemployment Insurance for people who are unemployed. That every America ( at least European-Americans ) should have an opportunity to succeed in America. He believed in a regulatory state not to run private industry, but to protect employees and consumers from predators in the economy. Perhaps not as progressive as Theodore Roosevelt ( but most American politicians weren’t back then ) but an economic Progressive. Even though he was very regressive when it came to race relations and promoted segregation and separating African-Americans from European-Americans.

But if you want to know why we had segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1920s and going all the way up to the mid-1960s, look no further than President Woodrow Wilson and his administration of the 19 teens. Where President Wilson even segregated the races in the Federal Government. And not allowing African-Americans to get good Federal jobs simply because of their race. Which gave life to Dixiecrats and Dixiecrat governors in the South, as well as local government’s own there to pass their own segregation laws.

Southern predominately Anglo-Saxon European-Americans, knew they lost the Civil War and that slavery would no longer be tolerated. But there’s that old saying that the Confederates lost the Civil War but won the battles and the reconstruction. Jim Crow laws were Confederates chance at revenge. Acknowledging that slavery was history but that since Africans would no longer be slaves for anyone in America, that instead they would be treated like second-class citizens in America and in some cases not even be treated like American citizens at all. Be treated like criminals, terrorists, and even animals, by Southern racists. And Jim Crow laws and segregation, is obviously a huge part of the negative legacy of President Woodrow Wilson. Just like Watergate is a big part of President Richard Nixon’s negative legacy.

The Film Archives: Mississippi Freedom Riders- Civil Rights Movement

Source: The Film Archives- Freedom Fighters in the 1960s American South.

Source:The Daily View

"Freedom Riders were civil rights activists who rode interstate buses into the segregated southern United States, in 1961 and subsequent years, in order to challenge the non-enforcement of the United States Supreme Court decisions Morgan v. Virginia (1946) and Boynton v. Virginia (1960), which ruled that segregated public buses were unconstitutional. The Southern states had ignored the rulings and the federal government did nothing to enforce them. The first Freedom Ride left Washington, D.C., on May 4, 1961, and was scheduled to arrive in New Orleans on May 17.

Boynton outlawed racial segregation in the restaurants and waiting rooms in terminals serving buses that crossed state lines.[7][page needed] Five years prior to the Boynton ruling, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had issued a ruling in Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company (1955) that had explicitly denounced the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) doctrine of separate but equal in interstate bus travel. The ICC failed to enforce its ruling, and Jim Crow travel laws remained in force throughout the South.

The Freedom Riders challenged this status quo by riding interstate buses in the South in mixed racial groups to challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation in seating. The Freedom Rides, and the violent reactions they provoked, bolstered the credibility of the American Civil Rights Movement. They called national attention to the disregard for the federal law and the local violence used to enforce segregation in the southern United States. Police arrested riders for trespassing, unlawful assembly, and violating state and local Jim Crow laws, along with other alleged offenses, but they often first let white mobs attack them without intervention.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) sponsored most of the subsequent Freedom Rides, but some were also organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The Freedom Rides followed dramatic sit-ins against segregated lunch counters, conducted by students and youth throughout the South, and boycotts of retail establishments that maintained segregated facilities, beginning in 1960.

The Supreme Court's decision in Boynton supported the right of interstate travelers to disregard local segregation ordinances. Southern local and state police considered the actions of the Freedom Riders to be criminal and arrested them in some locations. In some localities, such as Birmingham, Alabama, the police cooperated with Ku Klux Klan chapters and other white people opposing the actions and allowed mobs to attack the riders."

From The Film Archives

The Mississippi Freedom Riders, were young adults and civil rights activists and even volunteers, who had the gaul to march and ride for freedom and equal rights for African-Americans in 1961 and then several times after that in the 1960s. To challenge non-enforcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Morgan v Virginia and Boynton V. Virginia. Which ruled that segregated public buses were unconstitutional. States like Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and others in the South, were not enforcing these Supreme Court decisions. Even though under law they were supposed to.

Keep in mind, Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement, was already up and running by 1961, but it didn’t have the backing of the media and especially not Congress, or the Eisenhower Administration, or even the Kennedy Administration, by 1961, at least not officially. They were working what’s called backchannels and staying in touch with each other and the U.S. Administration working with Dr. King and his organization behind the scenes.

But even if President Kennedy was privately in favor of civil and equal rights for all Americans in 1961, he certainly wasn’t making that position public yet. It’s not until 1963 after big bombing in Alabama where President John Kennedy comes out strongly in favor of civil rights laws in a prime time speech that the networks broadcast.

The civil rights marchers and even the Freedom Riders, were considered radical especially in the early 1960s especially pre-civil rights laws of the mid 1960s. Imagine that, radicals because they not only believed in individual freedom, but then would march for that, but take that even a step forward and march for civil rights and equal rights for all Americans.

But that what life was like in the early 1960s which didn’t look much different culturally and politically as 1955. Where racial and ethnic minorities in America, were seen as second-class citizens. Even though under the U.S. Constitution they were entitled to the same rights, freedom, and responsibility as European-Americans and even European-American men and even Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon men.

The Film Archives: Jonathan Alter- 'How FDR Saved Capitalism, America & Changed The World'

Source: The Film Archives- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, perhaps in the 1930s during the Great Depression.

Source:The Daily View

"The first 100 days of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency began on March 4, 1933, the day Roosevelt was inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States. During this period, he presented a series of initiatives to Congress designed to counter the effects of the Great Depression. He had signaled his intention to move with unprecedented speed to address the problems facing the nation in his inaugural address, declaring: "I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require."[1] Roosevelt's specific priorities at the outset of his presidency were getting Americans back to work, protecting their savings and create prosperity, providing relief for the sick and elderly, and getting industry and agriculture back on their feet.[2] The 100th day of his presidency was June 11, 1933.

Roosevelt coined the term "first 100 days" during a July 24, 1933, radio.[1][3] Fifteen major laws were enacted during this period. Since then, the first 100 days of a presidential term has taken on symbolic significance, and the period is considered a benchmark to measure the early success of a president.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spent the first week of his Presidency dealing with a month-long series of bank closures that were ruining families nationwide.[4]:78 He closed the entire American banking system on March 6, 1933. On March 9, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act, which Roosevelt used to effectively create federal deposit insurance when the banks reopened.[5] At 10 p.m. ET that Sunday night, on the eve of the end of the bank holiday, Roosevelt spoke to a radio audience of more than 60 million people, to tell them in clear language "what has been done in the last few days, why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be."[4]:78–79 It was the first of 30 evening radio addresses that came to be called the Fireside Chats.

The result, according to economic historian William L. Silber, was a "remarkable turnaround in the public's confidence … The contemporary press confirms that the public recognized the implicit guarantee and, as a result, believed that the reopened banks would be safe, as the President explained in his first Fireside Chat." Within two weeks people returned more than half of the cash they had been hoarding, and the first stock-trading day after the bank holiday marked the largest-ever one-day percentage price increase.

FDR's New Deal faced considerable opposition from both sides of the aisle. Democratic reformists felt the New Deal did not go far enough and Republicans felt that FDR was overstepping his authority.[10] Roosevelt's biggest left-leaning critic was also his biggest political rival. Louisiana's Gov. Huey Long argued that the New Deal didn't go far enough. Long, positioning for his own prospective presidential run, had pushed expansive social programs and infrastructure investments in his state, and wanted to see FDR follow suit on a national level.[11] Although some Democrats had turned on FDR due to the New Deal, the strongest opposition came from Republicans and the business sector. The most popular complaints were that the legislative package cost too much and that it overstepped the government's authority."

From The Film Archives

To understand the FDR Presidency I believe you have to understand the 1930s especially 1933 and the state of the union then. Franklin Roosevelt becomes President of the United States in March, 1933 during the Great Depression. The worst economic period in American history. With over 20% unemployment and poverty at around 40%. Businesses and banks collapsing everyday, more people getting unemployed everyday. Food lines, food banks, and soup kitchens, not just open but flooded with people who just recently were employed and working middle class jobs. Being unemployed, bankrupt, and in poverty, were common experiences back in the early 1930s in America.

There was this feeling that American capitalism and private enterprise, was facing and collapsing and that it needed to be seriously reformed and perhaps even replaced. Not just socialism but communism, was looking okay and looking like a reasonable alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism in America by a lot of Americans back then. This is the state of the union that Franklin Roosevelt was facing when he becomes President of the United States in 1933 a situation that just five years ago looked impossible and that it would never even be taken seriously let alone be seen as a possible solution, now looked like a serious possibility in 1933.

This is the situation that Franklin ( does anyone call Franklin Roosevelt Frank or Franky? ) inherited when he became President of the United States in 1933 and it became about what should President Roosevelt and his administration do about it. Keep in mind, FDR wasn’t seen as a Progressive or Progressive Democrat even when he was Governor of New York. He was sort of all over the place on key issues back then including prohibition and foreign policy. It’s as President of the United States where FDR becomes the great Progressive Democrat that he’s seen as now and has been seen at least since the 1940s when the American economy finally returned to health and became strong again.

So FDR and his administration had some options and choices to make when he becomes President in 1933. One option was to do nothing and stick with the status quo which is what the President Herbert Hoover and his Administration were doing in the late 1920s and early 1930s when the Great Depression started.

Another option was to do what Communists and even Democratic Socialists back then were suggesting, which was to nationalize American business’s and then prop up failing ones to try to put people back to work. As well as severely raising taxes on the wealthy to put back into the economy though increased government spending that way.

Franklin Roosevelt wasn’t a laissez faire Ayn Rand Randian or a Socialist and certainly not a Communist. He believed in American capitalism but that it needed to be reformed which is the option that he chooses instead and how we got the New Deal and an expansion of the regulatory state that his cousin Theodore Roosevelt created as President thirty years earlier.

The New Deal was the creation of the safety net in America. Where people could go to when they faced rough economic times. Like being out-of-work or not making enough money to adequately feed themselves and their families. As well as pension insurance which is what Social Security is for people who don’t have a private pension when they retire or not a big enough pension to support themselves in retirement.

President Franklin Roosevelt was labeled as a Socialist and even Communist, in the 1930s and 1940s because of his push for the New Deal which was a progressive agenda filled with all sorts of progressive laws. And then later in the 1940s for his push for an Economic Bill of Rights, which was more of a socialist agenda and creating a British or Scandinavian welfare state for America.

But as far as how President Roosevelt addressed the Great Depression and what he got passed into law as President, he was a Progressive. With the attitude being what needs to be done and what can done to make things better in America and create progress and what government can and should be done about that.

PBS: American Masters- 'None Without Sin: The Story of Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan'

Source:PBS- Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan, being featured in this PBS documentary.

Source:The New Democrat

"A fascinating (and hard to come by) 2003 PBS documentary look at the relationship between playwright Arthur Miller and Director Elia Kazan, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and its Red Baiting - and the defiant art the period inspired.

Written, produced and directed by Michael Epstein."

From PBS

Elia Kazan was looked down upon ( and I'm being nice ) because he was former Communist and member of Communist Party USA, who testified in 1952 in front of the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, for outing other Communists and Socialists who worked in Hollywood. And because of this Kazan was able to continue his brilliant Hollywood career as a direct or, producer, and writer. And as a result his colleagues in Hollywood refused to honor his great works because the Socialist-Left in Hollywood saw him as a traitor. Even though no one will even attempt to argue that Elia Kazan wasn't a great writer, director, and producer.

So Elia Kazan had two feet kicking him in the rear during is career. One foot because the corporate establishment kicking him simply for being a Communist and kicking him simply because of his personal politics and beliefs. The other foot the Socialist-Left. Actors, directors, producers, writers, the employees in Hollywood, kicking Kazan because he came out as a Communist, which is like admitting to being a rapist or murderer, to the Fascist-Right in America.

We have a guaranteed right to free speech in America which of course covers politics but other aspects of what we think and what we have to say, with only a few exceptions dealing with libel, inciting violence, and harassment. ( Not offensive speech ) So unless you're working for foreign government to try to hurt the United States, or involved in terrorist activities to advance your politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. Even if it offends tight asses on the Far-Right who have their own limited view of what it means to be an American. Or tight asses on the Far-Left who believe anything that is critical about anyone who is not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant straight male, should be censored.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: there's nothing dangerous about one's political beliefs and thoughts. People have a right to believe what they believe. America is so strong as a liberal democracy that we tolerate people who believe America is some racist evil empire. Which is what Communists and perhaps Democratic Socialists even, tend to believe. And we can tolerate people who believe non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants, are basically animals not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the English-Protestants who came to America in the 16 and 1700s. Doesn't mean fringe thinking in America shouldn't be looked down upon and people who act on those fringe beliefs through violence shouldn't be monitored and punished. But Americans shouldn't be denied access in America and be blacklisted simply because of their personal politics.

Inside Edition: Reverend Martin Luther King- 'I Have a Dream'

Source: Inside Edition- Dr. Martin L. King, delivering his I Have a Dream speech, in Washington, in 1963.

Source:The Daily View

"On Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, we remember the civil rights leader's most famous speech, and King's remarkable legacy. He was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta. He gave the "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug. 28, 1963 to 250,000 people who marched to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that created a federal holiday to honor King, celebrated on the third Monday in January."

From Inside Edition

One of the things I love about Dr. Martin L. King’s speeches is that there is never any need for a commentator or narrator for his speeches. He was so clear with how he spoke and always right to the point. There was no (pardon the word) bullshit with Dr. King. You always knew where he stood and what he believed.

So in that sense it’s probably a good thing for Dr. King and bad for everyone else in America who wasn’t a bigot that Martin King never got involved in American politics as a politician. Because he would always say what he believed because he was honest to his core. And would have driven his political staff crazy! People who are professional pols who believe their bosses can’t afford politically to be always be honest, if ever.

Having said all of that and to get to Dr. King’s speech. I believe it’s the greatest speech in American history at least ever given by a non-political and non-governmental official. He laid out in one speech what America should always be about and since the civil rights movement I believe America has been about what we should be about which is this beautiful idea of America being that place on a shining hill for the rest of the world to see and to admire. (To paraphrase Ronald Reagan)

Where all Americans regardless of complexion, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of religion, regardless of who we were born to and the economic backgrounds of our parents, that all Americans can make it in America if they just do the work and make themselves the best and most productive people that they can be. Get a good education and put their skills to work.

A big reason why I’m a Liberal is because of Dr. King’s I Have a Dream speech. He wanted an America where his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I want an America where everyone’s children and where every American is judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin or any other physical attribute that they were born with that comes from being a member of a certain race, ethnicity, or gender.

Which should always be what America should be about which is why we should always object to identity politics when it comes from the Far-Left or from the Far-Right. Or from whatever ethnic or racial group in America. And instead just look at Americans as people and judge them by what they do and what they think. Not by how they were born.

Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- Discusses The Hollywood Blacklist

Source: Foundation Interviews- Actress Betty Garrett, being interviewed about The Hollywood Blacklist.

Source:The New Democrat

"Betty Garrett discusses the Hollywood Blacklist - Emmy TV Legends.

From Foundation Interviews

Betty Garrett saying in this interview that workers in Hollywood we're interested in the Communist Party (Communist Party USA) and not just interested but politically active, because the Communist Party back then were talking about issues like affordable housing, health care, civil and equal rights, what would be called progressive causes and that they were called a progressive organization. Hearing the words communist and progressive, to describe Communists, is ironic at best.

I don't doubt that Communists believe in affordable housing and that government has a big role in seeing that is available for everyone. Or that they believe in affordable health care and health insurance. Or that they believe in equal rights for everyone in the country. Keep in mind, the civil rights movement was just a baby back in the mid and late 1940s when the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigations were going on in Congress with the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee. Perhaps not even a baby and not even born yet.

Equal rights for all Americans and seeing that Non-European Americans had the same civil rights and constitution rights as English-Protestants in America, was not a mainstream issue. After all, Communists are Socialists when it comes to economic policy and today even there's still a lot of Marxism in the communist movement in America.

But, if Communists were to ever come to power in America (and it started snowing in Hell on the same day) most if not all of our civil liberties and constitutional rights would disappear. Most rights in America are individual rights. Free speech, the right to not be discriminated against under law based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion. The right to privacy, our property rights, equal justice under law. The right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.

Communists don't believe in individual rights and individualism in general. They believe everyone in society should be subjects of the state and that it's the job of the central state to see that everyone is taken care of and that the central government has to have not just broad but unlimited powers to see that everyone is taken care of in society, but to keep the regime protected and in power indefinitely. The Communists do have socialist leanings and policies when it comes to welfare rights and the general welfare, but it is a very regressive philosophy by in-large especially when it comes to civil liberties and individualism.

As far as the Hollywood Ten and the Communists in Hollywood investigations: Americans (even in Hollywood) have the same free speech rights as Americans who believe in individual freedom and limited government. Or Americans who believe Christian Theocracy and ethno and racial nationalism. Or Democratic Socialists, or actual Progressives, or people who don't believe in any form of government at all.

Americans have a guaranteed right to free speech in America because we are a constitutional liberal democracy with guaranteed individual rights under our Constitution. And therefor have the right to believe what they believe and speak out on what they believe and work for people who share their political beliefs. And shouldn't be punished simply because of their politics. Which is what happened in Hollywood to the Hollywood ten and with by their own Federal Government by being persecuted by Congress because of their political beliefs.

Michael Vermeylen: 'Hollywood Communists- Hollywood on Trial'

Source: Michael Vermeylen- Hollywood writer Dalton Trumbo.

Source:The New Democrat

"Combining familiar newsreel footage with freshly shot material, David Helpern's Hollywood on Trial is a documentary concerning the "communist witch-hunt" era. In the years following World War II, several ambitious Washington politicos were anxious to dissipate the last traces of Roosevelt's New Deal, and in so doing labelled virtually everything hinting of liberalism as communistic.

These cynical crusaders couldn't make the headlines if they merely concentrated on such "radicals" as college professors and pamphleteers, so they targeted the most public industry of all: Motion Pictures. That's why the House UnAmerican Activities Committee conducted one-sided "investigations" of the Hollywood Left, and that's why so many actors, writers and directors found themselves on the Blacklist that no producer would ever admit existed.

Most of Hollywood on Trial concerns itself with the misadventures of the "Hollywood Ten," a group of writers and directors who refused to answer the committee's questions and wound up in jail as a result. John Huston, himself briefly under scrutiny from the HUAC for being "unfriendly," narrates this surprisingly objective, multi-viewpointed film. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi" 

From Michael Vermeylen

My whole problem and issue with the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigation that Congress investigated in the 1940s first in the House and later in the Senate in the 1950s, is that it was hypocritical and violated most of the individual rights that Americans love and cherish and that so-called Conservatives back then said they cherished as well which was our individualism, free expression, free speech, free assembly, the right for Americans to believe what they want and to practice their own politics as they please. Whether they were Far-Left Communists and Socialists that believed America was the real Evil Empire and Russia as misunderstood. Or Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists who saw African-Americans and other non-Europeans as animals.

You had these Far-Right Republicans in the House of Representatives and Neo-Confederate Democrats especially, who saw even the belief in communism and people having communist beliefs as some threat to American and Western civilization, that even having Communists in America at all even as private citizens with no foreign government connections and people who just had communist beliefs, would somehow destroy America.

And saw Communist Americans who again only had those political beliefs as people who don't have the same constitutional and individual rights as people who believe African-Americans aren't real Americans and therefor underserving of the same rights as European-Americans. You literally had right-wing racists believing that Communists who weren't bigots, weren't real Americans and therefor should be put in jail simply for their political beliefs.

You have political correctness on the Far-Left and some of that comes from Communists or people with communist leanings at least who believe they know best how every American should think and what they should believe. And believe any humor and criticism of racial and ethnic, as well as religious minorities is bigoted and therefore should be censored even though law even if the humor and criticism is accurate.

But you also have political correctness on the Far-Right in America coming from the Christian-Right as well as Nationalist-Right or Alt-Right, who believe they the real Americans because of what they think and how they live and believe anyone who looks at the world differently are Un-American and therefor do not deserve the same rights as these supposed real Americans. And the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee was a big part of that.

The only Un-American thing about HUAC ( House Un-American Activities Committee) was the committee itself. They should've been investigating themselves for being Un-American. The House should have created another select committee to investigate the Un-American activities of UUAC.

Because in America we have a guaranteed right to free speech under the First Amendment. That cover the freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all. The right to believe what we want, to associate with who we want short of known criminals, and the right to say what we want short of falsely libeling people or harassing people, inciting violence. And the so-called HUAC committee violated most if not all of our First Amendment rights and should have never been put together.

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff Interviewing Richard N. Smith: Looking Back at The Life & Politics of Nelson Rockefeller

Source:PBS- Presidential historian Richard N. Smith's book, about Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Source:The Daily View

"A politician who self-described as having a “Democrat heart with a Republican head,” Nelson Rockefeller would be something of a political anomaly today. Biographer Richard Norton Smith, author of “On His Own Terms,” joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what distinguished the four-time New York governor and former vice president."

From PBS NewsHour

Richard Smith nailed it when he told Judy Woodruff and she asked him about how  to describe Nelson Rockefeller’s politics with Smith saying that Nelson was a Progressive-Conservative. Which I know sounds like an Oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or hot ice, the Cleveland Browns NFL franchise. (Not to pick on Cleveland)

And I prefer the term Progressive Republican like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Newt Gingrich. Someone who believes in government action to create progress but who puts limits on government to doing only the things that government should be doing. Like helping people in need help themselves.

Nelson or Nellie wasn’t a hardcore Conservative or Classical Conservative, Conservative Libertarian. As Richard Smith said Nelson disagreed with Barry Goldwater who did almost by himself put conservative libertarianism on the map in American politics, on almost all the issues.

But Nelson was a Conservative similar to Teddy Roosevelt in the sense that he believed in conserving what worked well in America like our Constitution, diversity, and individualism, and yes our environment. But he also believed in using government to again create progress and make things better.

A true Conservative in a political sense believes in conserving. Which has nothing to do with bigotry, national defense, property rights, to use as examples. But someone who believes conserving what works well and what makes society strong.

And yes, Conservatives tend to believe in conserving those things that I just mentioned, but generally conservatism in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights.

Not using government to force people to live in a certain way because those are the religious and moral values of some faction of believers. Nelson Rockefeller was a Conservative in that sense. But he also believed government could play a limited but constructive role in seeing that progress was achieved and that society could be better.

Theodore Roosevelt: 'Let Us Remember'

Source: AZ Quotes- One of Theodore Roosevelt's best quotes.

Source:The Daily View 

"A quote from "Citizenship in a Republic" (speech, 1910) by Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (1858-1919). Music & recitation by Charles Belfor. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

From Charles Belfor

Source: Charles Belfor- Theodore Roosevelt, certainly was The Man in The Arena.

It seems to me from this Theodore Roosevelt quote that he was arguing for both a progressive income tax and national service. A progressive income tax where Americans are taxed based on their ability to pay taxes.

The more money you make an earn on your own, the more in taxes that you would pay. For people in poverty they would pay the less if any in income taxes and people in the middle would pay a moderate level of income taxes. Which is the income tax system that America has right now, if you exclude the tax deductions and benefits that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals greatly. While middle class Americans other then being able to deduct their home mortgage interest and their state sales taxes, as well the child tax credit, tend to pay the U.S. Government (or Uncle Sam) what they owe by law in taxes. I believe it's safe to say like it's also safe to say that it snows in Minnesota in January, that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t be a fan of the modern American income tax system.

And then you look at the TR quote where he’s saying that as much that has been given must, much will be expected in return. Again, I believe he’s arguing for progressive taxation there, but he’s also arguing for national service and public service.

That its a real privilege to live in and be born in America and we simply have the advantages that a lot of other people if not most people who are born and raised in other countries which is why we have the economic as well as personal freedom that we do, that we should be expected to give back to the country, because so much has been given to us. Not just in taxes but in public and national service to make the country a better place. Whether its military service, foreign service, law enforcement, becoming teachers, or volunteering for charities , that we should give back because so much as been given to us.

As strange as this might sound there is a lot of TR in the wealthiest and most successful of American families. The Bush Family has always believed in public service. The Roosevelt’s obviously, the Kennedy Family, the Rockefeller Family, the Carnegie Family, and many others. These great families believe that other Americans who didn’t grow up with the same advantages as they did and perhaps didn’t have any advantages at all, believe that the underprivileged deserve an hand up to help them have a better life in America.

And not just through public policy, but through private charity and other non-profit organizations that serve the needy in America. Which is also a major part of Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy.

BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis- Interviewing Kurt Anderson: 'On Donald Trump and Fantasyland'

Source: BBC News- Kurt Anderson, being interviewed by BBC News, in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, Kurt Anderson was halfway through a book that he would title Fantasyland. It put the birth of fake news and false claims into a wider historical context. Kurt Anderson argues America has long been a place where renegades and freaks came in search of freedom to create their own realities. Emily Maitlis spoke to him in Washington."

From BBC Newsnight

Donald Trump and Fantasyland? Donald Trump is Fantasyland! Donald Trump is the President of Fantasyland! The United Donald of Fantasyland is the country that he presides over where facts don't matter and even exist. "If Donald Trump says it, it must be true." According the citizens of Fantasyland which is a fairly big country. Roughly 60 million people give or take voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016. If there was an amusement park called Fantasyland, Donald Trump would run the place. Well, he would probably just own it and instead hire someone who knows what they're doing run the place for him instead.

About 46% of the vote, voted for Donald Trump for President. Not talking about Lebanon or some other country that might have an authoritarian government but is so small as well as poor that it doesn't represent much if any threat to even its neighbors, let alone people around the world.

Fantasyland is a country where everything that Donald Trump says especially about himself, of course is true. Because again we're talking about Fantasyland where everyday is a marijuana high. Where facts don't matter. If Donald Trump had to operate in the real world, take Planet Earth to use as an example, he would fail miserably because he would have to deal with truth all the time. Which is generally bad about him because lack basic human values: Like commonsense, maturity, character, decency, and unfortunately I could go on but I'll spare you.

Albert Einstein once said about the truth that: "whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Donald Trump is a man who can't even admit the simplest mistakes that he's made in life. Like falling asleep one night on his phone when he was in the middle of tweeting something around 2AM. Or claiming that he had the largest crowd size ever for a presidential inauguration with the National Park Service, that was only in charge of the event contradicting the President of the United States hours later.

Donald Trump simply a man because of lack of knowledge as well as honesty, who mentally doesn't operate in the real world. Says and sees things about himself and others that simply aren't there. In some cases he's simply lying, which of course is not uncommon with politicians, but in other cases he simply doesn't know any better.

When you lose touch with reality or simply deny it and Donald Trump who is only the President of the United States unfortunately qualifies on both scores, you can't be trusted. Because you're dishonest and irresponsible. Anyone who trusts a dishonest person is asking to be screwed by that person: "I'm an idiot because I trust you, do your worst to me." And the same goes with an irresponsible man who sees pigs flying in the air, three-million Americans voting illegally with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I don't enjoy saying these things about the President of the United States and have never been this harsh about any President including President Richard Nixon. But to quote Khaled Hosseini: "better to get hurt by the truth, than comforted with a lie." The only way people can self-improve is to first know where they're at fault. The only way Donald Trump could ever become an even decent President is to operate in the real world. And stop making things up and seeing things that simply don't exist.

Liberty Counsel: Newt Gingrich Q&A- 'Why Do You Admire Theodore Roosevelt?'

Source: Liberty Counsel- Newt Gingrch, talking about his Theodore Roosevelt Progressive politics, back in 2012.

Source:The Daily View

"Open Q&A Session with Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich at the Aloma Church in Winter Park FL. Hosted by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel on Saturday January 28, 2012."

From Liberty Counsel

A lot of members of the Tea Party, sound like Libertarians on economic policy, even if they are Big Government Republicans when it comes to social policy and would like to outlaw a lot of personal activities including what people do in their own homes and privacy. Former Representative Michele Bachmann, former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Scott Walker come to mind, Phyllis Schlafly from back in the day.

Newt Gingrich even though he has many things in common with the populist blue-collar wing of the Tea Party that now backs Donald Trump 100%, he's not a Big Government Republican when it comes to either economic or social policy. He doesn’t want government taxing and regulating private business’s to the point where they’re essentially public utilities that are owned by shareholders.

But Newt is not a Libertarian either or even a Conservative-Libertarian. He believes in a big strong national defense and strong law enforcement, as well as low taxation and regulation. But he does believe in limited regulation not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers from predators.

Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican and so is Newt Gingrich. Where they differ on the issues, is anyone’s guess. They both believe in a strong America both economically, but also militarily and believe America can be positive force working with our allies around the world. And they both believe that government has a limited role in helping people achieve success for themselves.

Neither one of them are Liberal and certainly in Teddy Roosevelt’s case, not a Conservative. But both believe in using a limited government to help build a better America by empowering people to take control of their own lives. And seeing that America is as strong and safe as possible. This is why they’re both Progressives and both Republicans.

James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck: Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

Source: James Michl- Bill O'Reilly, giving Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Finger, talking about Newt Gingrich. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Glenn Beck on the Factor Newt G. Progressive"

From James Michl

I just have a flat disagreement with Glenn Beck on what a Progressive is and also find myself on this weird planet if not universe, where I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I wasn't sure I could agree with Bill O'Reilly about current weather in Miami or how many states are part of the United States, because Bill is wrong about so many things.

But O'Reilly is right about Newt Gingrich at least in the sense that what was a Progressive in the early 20th Century about being someone who is about progress and using government to help create that progress and what's supposed to pass as a Progressive today (like the Cleveland Browns trying to pass as an NFL franchise) , are two completely different things.

According to Glenn Beck a Progressive and a Socialist, are the same thing. Hell, why not add Communist and say being a Communist is the same thing as being a Progressive. Even though most of the Communist ideology is regressive with how authoritarian it is and all the rights and freedom that people would lose if Communists were to some how come into power even though democratic means.

Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive. Bernie Sanders, Socialist. The Progressive doesn't want a government dominated society where most if not all of our social benefits and economic security, is provided by government and financed through our taxes. The Democratic Socialist at least, doesn't want government completely in charge of society. But our individual freedom and personal income, would be much more limited if Democratic Socialists were to ever come to power.

Newt Gingrich is obviously not a Libertarian, or a Nationalist, has some things in common with the Christian-Right, but doesn't roll with them on all their policies. Not a Conservative-Libertarian either, but he's a Progressive in a conservative sense. Someone who believes in using government to create progress, but through conservative free market principles.

For example: instead of just having people on public assistance just stay there and give them some money, Newt would say that those people should be looking for and getting work, as well as education so they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance at all. As a condition of receiving that taxpayer funded public assistance. With is very different from a Libertarian who says that government shouldn't be involved in public welfare at all. And a Socialist saying that government should guarantee a basic income for everyone with no conditions.

For perhaps the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal narcotics but it feels like I'm on some high and seeing things that shouldn't be there. Like Donald Trump being President of the United States. Wait, that actually did happen.

But O'Reilly's idea of a Progressive is inline with Teddy Roosevelt's, as well as mine. That progressivism is about progress. That the first eight letters in the word progressive is actually progress. And that being a Socialist is about socialization and using government to solve most if not all the problems in the country. With Glenn Beck believing that Progressive is another word for Socialist. Someone who believes in big government. Even though a Socialist is lot more ideological than a Progressive would actually ever be.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about Alabama Judge Roy Moore.

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill reacts to the latest sexual assault allegations against Judge Roy Moore and others in his Real Time monologue."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story: One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from God and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering an Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state: this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder why Alabama is seen as a backwards, redneck, neanderthal, state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.