Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Jocz Productions: President Woodrow Wilson's- '14 Points and League of Nations Explained'

Source:Jocz Productions- President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, explained.
Source:The Daily View

"Learn about the League of Nations and Wilson's 14 Points with the help of Michael Jackson, NSYNC, Tom Hanks, Mr. Jocz, and more!"

From Jocz Productions

President Woodrow Wilson, was an idealist at least in one sense: he saw a post-World War I Europe that would be liberal democratic, with free private economies, that would never want to go to war with each other, because they would never have to. The boundaries of each country would be clear and recognized and the economies would all be private and successful. And these countries would then serve as great ally to America and never need to go to war with America either. And both sides would be great trade partners as well. With expansive free trade and low tariffs.

The League of Nations like the United Nations in the 1940s and 1950s post-World War II, was seen as an organization of allies that would protect and defend democracy and freedom around the world. The 19 teens and 1920s, was pre-Cold War. Where liberal democracies like America and in Europe, were in competition with communist and authoritarian countries like Russia, the Communist Republic of Germany ( which was East Germany ) and Eastern European Slavic countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia.

Had the League of Nations been successful, maybe we don’t get World War II. Not saying that the Nazi Party wouldn’t come to power in Germany in the 1930s and that America and Europe, wouldn’t have gone to war with Nazi Germany in the 1940s. But there would have been this League of Nations there and Europe would have been stronger and as a result Adolph Hitler’s power and destruction outside of Germany would have been limited.

President Wilson’s idealist vision for America and Europe, was to have liberal democratic countries that would have no need to go to war with each other. Because they would always have peace and prosperity. Be reliable trading partners with each other and America and defend liberal democratic values. And not feel the need to invade each other because they respected each others land an autonomy.

I believe one of the reasons why Nazi Germany was able to come to power and create so much destruction for German Jews but other Jews in Europe like in Poland and France, was because there wasn’t this international organization there to keep the peace and promote democracy and national autonomy. America and Europe, didn’t go to war with Nazi Germany until after a lot of damage and murders and been committed because there wasn’t this international organization to prevent something like a Nazi Germany from coming to power.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- 'The 14 Points Explained- U.S. History Review'

Source:Hip Hughes- Keith Hughes, talking about President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
Source:The Daily View

"Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points broken down and put into context so you can easily soak up the main ideas. Ideal for stressed out students as well as lifelong learners and the cray cray on the internets. Be sure to subscribe for over 200 fun, focused and FREE HipHughes History videos at Hip Hughes"

As Keith Hughes says in this video the League of Nations was the key point ( no pun intended ) in President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points. And even though the U.S. Senate didn’t ratify the League of Nations treaty Europe and other countries did. And the LN managed to stay in business for a while and was the forerunner to what became the United Nations post-World War II.

The 14 Points was about ending World War I but also about how America and Europe and how the countries in Europe would relate to each other after World War I. Including Germany which lost World War I going away. And the 14 Points was about not just winning the peace post-World War I and doing by the stabilizing the economies in Europe so countries would flourish and not feel the need to go to war to improve their economies, but to settle issues about land and who can use what waters and when.

As I’ve written before Woodrow Wilson was not just a liberal internationalist when it came to foreign policy, but he is also at the very least one of the father’s of liberal internationalism. And believed that liberal democracy had to be defended and promoted in order to keep authoritarians from coming into power especially by force, but also through democratic means as we saw with Adolph Hitler in Germany.

And that unlike Neoconservatives and neoconservatism, Wilsonian liberal internationalists, believe that America should work with their allies in order to promote and defend liberal democracy. Mostly through diplomatic means but if necessary through military means as we saw during World War II. Neoconservatives tend to be more military first and tend to be more unilateral than Liberals when it comes to foreign policy.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- August Hecksher: 'Woodrow Wilson- Biography, Family Background, Education & Politics'

Source: The Film Archives- President Woodrow Wilson: 28th President of the United States. As well as the last Neo-Confederate President of the United States.
Source:The Daily View

"Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 -- February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, in office from 1913 to 1921. About the book: Amazon

A leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With the Republican Party split in 1912, he was elected as a Democrat."

From The Film Archives

As I mentioned last week, I have mixed feelings about Woodrow Wilson and his politics. Because on one side he’s basically the father of liberal internationalism and was our first liberal internationalist as President. This foreign policy that is about liberal democracy, defending liberal democracy, supporting liberal democracy around the world, and working with our allies to defend liberal democracy and promote liberal democracy. To defend liberal democracy against communism and other authoritarian philosophies around the world. This has been the dominate foreign policy of the Democratic Party going from President Wilson, all the way up to President Barack Obama.

But while President Wilson believed in liberal internationalism and defending liberal democracy around the world which was a reason why he got America involved in World War I, he supported and promoted authoritarianism at home.

President Wilson, is one of the father’s and architects of our Jim Crow laws that segregated the races in schools and other forms forms of access to American life like housing and backing to use as other examples. Which was always a big weapon and tool that authoritarian states like Russia and others used during the Cold War, used against America. Saying that while we attack their authoritarianism in their countries, we promote a different type of authoritarianism in our own country. By denying African-Americans access to American life simply because of their race.

So on one side you have a brilliant President when it comes to foreign policy and national security, similar to Richard Nixon or George H.W. Bush, but without as many national security qualifications as President Nixon or President Bush, But on the other side you have a President who believes Americans should be separated simply because of their race and that African-Americans are inferior to European-Americans, simply because of their race and complexion.

You combine Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, with Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights policy, with Bill Clinton’s economic policy, and you might have the perfect President politically. Because those three President’s were so successful in their one area. Without President Wilson’s lack of support for civil and equal rights, I believe we’re definitely talking about a great President instead of a mediocre President.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

A&E: Biography- Gary Gilmore

Source:A&E- Biography Gary Gilmore.

Source:The New Democrat 

“After committing a series of escalating petty crimes in Oregon during his teens, Gary Gilmore was sent to reform school and later served his first stretch in prison. By the age of 35, he had spent half his life incarcerated. After receiving a conditional release in May 1976, Gilmore moved in with a cousin in Provo, Utah, and briefly led a normal life. However, two months later he killed two men in cold blood during separate robberies and was arrested shortly thereafter. Found guilty of first-degree murder in his October 1976 trial, Gilmore chose not to appeal his death sentence. His case became a rallying point for opponents of the death penalty, and his execution was delayed for a time. He was executed by a firing squad in January 1977." 

From Biography 

“Documentary TV is an English language documentary channel. It features free online documentaries about crime , violence , murders, cases, serial killers , America,Russia and world.

Don’t forget to subscribe and enjoy our videos for more Serial Killer Documentaries!”  

Source:Documentary TV- from an A&E bio of Gary Gilmore.

From Documentary TV

"Serial Killer - A&E Biography ''Gary Gilmore''

From A&E 

This photo is originally from a video that had the A&E Biography of Gary Gilmore. But if you are familiar with YouTube, you know that a lot of quality videos disappear, but a lot of the garbage manages to hang around. 

Source:A&E- Some of the most evil serial killers ever.
I’m not going to say that Gary Gilmore would have ended up as a terrific human being had he only had a father that loved him and raised him properly and didn’t beat his kids including Gary Gilmore. Because we’ll never know that.

And I’m not going to say Gilmore’s rough childhood should’ve spared him from his responsibilities in the murders that he was given. Even I do believe he should’ve been spared the death penalty which is a different issue. But Gary Gilmore unlike Ted Bundy or Jeff Dahmer, had good upbringings and parents who raised them well and who loved them. Gary didn’t really have that at all growing up.

Gary Gilmore’s father was basically a drunk bastard who wasn’t around much other than to pay the bills and when he was around would beat the kids mother, as well as the kids and beat Gary as well. Gary’s mother did love her kids including Gary, but wasn’t able to raise her kids properly. Didn’t have the skills and wasn’t able to make the money needed to raise her kids well.

Gary Gilmore similar to Charles Manson had a horrible upbringing and as a result became a very angry young man who got into a lot of trouble early in life. But the time Gilmore was executed in early 1977, he had already spent more than half of his time in life in prison.

Gary Gilmore was not a man who was built and raised to succeed in society and live with freedom. He only had any success in life when he was in prison and had real structure and people making decisions for him and supervising him. This is not a man who was ever ready to be outside of prison and a man who if he were left in prison indefinitely in prison, would’ve been a very productive prison inmate. And would’ve gotten himself a good education and job, but while in prison.

Outside of prison Gary Gilmore was a shark outside of the ocean. A killer shark who would lose his temper easily and not be able to find a good job and end up stealing to support himself and murdering the people he would steal from. Which is what he did in 1976 that eventually got him the death penalty.

Gary Gilmore was never suited for life on the outside and to live in freedom. And should’ve never been paroled. He is the poster child for outlawing parole in America, even though I’m not in favor of that. But if you were to eliminate parole it would be for criminals like Gary Gilmore. People who when are in the outside anyone who crosses their path and does the smallest thing that can set that person off, literally put their life at risk. Gilmore is someone who should’ve been given an indefinite sentence in prison before he was released for the last time in his life. And he wouldn’t have become a serial killer.  

Friday, January 26, 2018

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- 'The Election of 1912 Explained'

Source:Hip Hughes- Perhaps the last competitive 3-way American presidential election.
Source:The Daily View

"HipHughes covers the basics about one of the weirdest election the U.S. ever had. Four candidates, a lazy incumbent, a relative newcomer, an old Socialist and a pissed off Teddy Roosevelt.  And for the record TAFT was not Teddy's Vice President, he was his Secretary of War (Thanks Hayden Gordon)"

From Hip Hughes

As I’ve blogged before the 1912 presidential election is a very important and interesting election for many reasons. I mean if you’re a political junky such as myself the 1912 election is not the Super Bowl of American politics, but its the best Super Bowl of all-time. It’s the Super Bowls of Super Bowls and not like the modern Super Bowl or NFL where the last Super Bowl is automatically pumped up and sold as the greatest Super Bowl of all-time by the media and even the NFL, until the next Super Bowl. But this election was really the best ever I believe because of the clear choices that the American voters had.

1912 wasn’t about Democrat versus Republican and perhaps a charming entertaining third-party candidate who has hopes of getting 5% of the vote and sneak into the presidential debates. If there was TV back in 1912 at least 3-4 presidential candidates would’ve been invited to the debates and in the debates. Perhaps even all four with Socialist candidate Eugene Debs who got about 6% of the vote getting into the debates as well. Because the old progressive faction of the Republican Party thanks to Theodore Roosevelt, broke away from the Republican Party in 1912 and formed their Progressive Party.

The only thing that could’ve made the 1912 presidential elections better, perhaps along with TV, but instead of having two Conservatives in that election ( not to take a shot at Conservatives ) but have one Conservative being President William Taft. One Liberal whoever the Democratic candidate is. Along with the Progressive being Teddy Roosevelt and the Socialist being Gene Debs.

But instead there were two Conservatives ( again, not to take a shot at Conservatives ) with President Taft and Governor Woodrow Wilson, and a Progressive, as well as a Socialist. Taft and Wilson, differed a little on economic policy, but tended to agree on the other issues. TR and Debs, differed a lot from Taft and Wilson and also differed a lot from each other. TR was truly a Progressive and Debs was truly a pacifist-isolationist Democratic Socialist. Similar to Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party today.

Liberal democratic politics meaning liberal democracy and not the Democratic Party necessarily and American politics in general, should be about choice. And not just one or the other like trying to decide if you want the chicken or fish on an airline flight, but several choices with each candidate looking different from the others. That is what the 1912 presidential election represented and what American politics should be about generally. And if that means having runoffs and reforming the Electoral College so the winner doesn’t win the election with 40% of the vote which is what Woodrow Wilson won with in 1912, then I would be in favor of that.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

The Film Archives: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- James Chace: 'The Election That Changed The Country- How 1912 Changed American History'

Source: The Film Archives- Theodore Roosevelt: the 1912 Progressive Party nominee for President.
Source:The Daily View

"The United States presidential election of 1912 was the 32nd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1912. The election was a rare four-way contest. About the book: Amazon."

From The Film Archives

The 1912 presidential election was very interesting for many reasons in American politics: more than a hundred years later in a country that is now around 320 million people and yet 1912 was one of our last presidential elections with three major politic parties with the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and then Progressive Party, but also with three major presidential candidates. With none of the three candidates getting anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. This was truly a multiple-party presidential election.

1912 was also an election where Woodrow Wilson from the Democratic Party, was the centrist candidate. Even though he is basically the father of liberal internationalism and the foreign policy that was about liberal democracy and defending liberal democracy and fighting authoritarianism around the world. And had a progressive economic policy as far as regulating the economy and a belief in a public safety net.

But President William H. Taft was a Conservative Republican and Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive and in some cases ran as a Social Democrat in 1912 when he ran for President for the last time. So Americans voters had a real choice for President in 1912 and didn’t have to vote for the candidate they disliked the least, but instead had a real choice for President.

Back in the early 20th Century the Republican Party was a conservative party, but with a Progressive Republican wing in it. That Teddy Roosevelt was the leader of and when he didn’t win the 1912 presidential election and believed the nomination was stolen from his by President William Taft, he decided to create and build his own progressive party.

TR had the name and the ability to get the resources to do that and mange to run a credible third-party presidential campaign in 1912 because of these factors. And even though he lost to the eventual winner Democratic Woodrow Wilson, he beat the President of the United States Republican William Taft.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

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.



Tuesday, January 23, 2018

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.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

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.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

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.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

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.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

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.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

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.