Galib Abbasov: Malcolm X, Black & White (1972)

Source:The New Democrat

If it wasn’t for what Malcolm X fought for, for the African-American community as far as freedom and independence and trying to empower that entire community and free them from poverty, injustice and ignorance, then I probably wouldn’t have much respect if any respect for him. Because he used a lot of if not racist, certainly racial and nasty rhetoric towards Caucasian-Americans. And even though he did reform himself at the end of his life in 1964 or so after being exposed to more Caucasians-Americans as well as people oversees, he still said a lot of racial things that Caucasians probably couldn’t get away with.

Malcolm X is someone who I believe from the Center-Right in America, Conservatives and Conservative Libertarians, all the way over to the Far-Left can respect at least to some degree. Probably on the Far-Right which includes Americans of multiple races and ethnicities would say, “he was no good, he was a troublemaker, why should a Blackman have so much power?” That type of thing, but the Center-Right and Center-Left I think can if not respect the man because of what he was fighting for, for his community. Which was freedom and independence and moving his community off of public assistance though things like education, economic development, infrastructure.

Malcolm X wanted the African-American community to be a community of business owners. Small, medium and large business owners that would open their business’s in their communities and hire the people there. As well as working good middle class blue-collar jobs. His goal wasn’t integration and certainly not integration for the sake of integration. But he wanted freedom whether that meant getting that freedom living in separate communities from the Caucasian community. Or even living and working together, which by the time he dies he thought could work. With African and Caucasian-Americans living and working together.

Malcolm X was no Al Sharpton. Where he would use a lot of racially charge if not racial rhetoric to charge people up. And try to make Caucasians guilty and get them to give the African-American community more Welfare and other forms of public assistance. Malcolm X wasn’t about public assistance, but about independence. The ability for people to be able to live freely and not need government to take care of them. Which is where he separated from Dr. Martin King’s more social democratic movement that called for all sorts of new federal Welfare spending for the African-American community and Americans who live in poverty in general.

The Far-Left in America regardless of race would respect if not love Malcolm X because of how he talked about racism as it was directed towards African-Americans. And the rhetoric he used against racist Caucasians and Caucasians in general. Especially men, but they would separate from him back then like the Black Panther Party and today with Occupy Wall Street and other Far-Left movement’s when it came to economic policy. Because they don’t see public assistance and government dependence as bad things, even if it is indefinite. But as acts of compassion that, “this is how compassionate societies treat their people in need.”

So Malcolm X was someone who had broad appeal, respect, as well as hated across the political spectrum racial melting pot in America. He was loved for being a freedom fighter that literally wanted to empower an entire community of people to be able to live in freedom. And not to have to live with racism and injustice and be able to take care of themselves. But by his haters he was seen as a troublemaker and perhaps even as a troublemaker by people in the mainstream civil rights community that saw his rhetoric as unhelpful for their cause and movement. And one of the tragedies of his death is that it cost us an opportunity to see how he would’ve grown and be treated today.

CBS News: Mike Wallace's 1964 Interview of Minister Malcolm X

Source:CBS News- Minister Malcolm X, being interviewed by CBS News in 1964. 

Source:The New Democrat

Malcolm X made perhaps the most honest and truthful statement he ever made in life in this interview late in the interview. When he said in response to Mike Wallace’s question, “have any death threats been made against you?” With Malcolm saying, “yes I’m probably a dead man already.” I believe Malcolm was already moving away from the Nation of Islam anyway and moving in the direction of separation of the races in America might not be necessary after being exposed to Caucasians and people of other races in Mecca.

But then to basically accuse the Leader of the Nation of Islam Elijah Muhammad of not just having bastard children, but having bastard children with multiple women, would be like an Iraqi in 1990 or something running to the streets of Baghdad and calling for the death of Saddam Hussein. There certain things you don’t make public if you want to continue to be healthy and stay alive. Especially when you live in a dangerous environment to begin with. When you’re not just taking on the establishment, but taking on the establishment of your own community.

Elijah Muhammad did live multiple lives. The man in public as being this morally superior man who could guide the African-American community and show them how to live and improve themselves, was a different man in private. To the point that he cheated on his current wives, had multiple wives, fathered multiple children with multiple women at the same time. And perhaps even ordered hits on people that he saw as threats to his leadership, including Malcolm X.
Source:CBS News:

Safvio: Bill Clinton- His Life

Source:Safvio- from a DVD about President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat 

"His Life" follows Bill Clinton through his college days as a war protester, his years of purported womanizing as governor of Arkansas, his possible connections to drug trafficking and subsequent murders, "Filegate", the Whitewater scandal and his questionable decisions, campaign financing and practices during his two terms as President of the United States--always in the shadow of wife Hillary.

Interspersed with interviews, "His Life" is a thought-provoking documentary in the narrative style which compels the viewer to take a hard look at the life of one of the most controversial American presidents of all time. Before you see "Fahrenheit 911", make sure you're sitting down and watch this compelling documentary." 

From Safvio 

Source:Amazon- so who do you think this DVD is about?

Just to start off, you should know that I’m a big fan of Bill Clinton and a lot of my politics and own progressivism comes from him. And following his own career and he would’ve been someone I would’ve been more than happy to vote for twice for president if I was eligible. 

At risk of sounding overdramatic: Bill Clinton I believe at least saved the Democratic Party. The country was moving right and moving away from social-democratic, centralized government designed to take care of people. More towards individual freedom especially as it related to the economy and was tired of seeing their taxes going up especially as the debt and deficits were going up as well.

Congressional Republicans at some point probably in the 1990s was going to win back Congress both the House and Senate. Just because of where the country was and Republicans starting to dominate the South and continued to do well in the Midwest. Now, that didn’t have to be 1994 and President Clinton’s first two years probably sped up the Republican takeover of Congress. But that was going to happen in the near future if not 1994. And had it not have been for Bill Clinton the Democratic Party wouldn’t have been in ready with any message to respond to Conservative Republicans who came to power in the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions.

Without Bill Clinton the Democratic Party would’ve still been dominated not by FDR/LBJ Progressives, who are actually pretty practical mainstream center-leftists. But McGovernites (named after Senator George McGovern) from the New-Left who came of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s and got organized inside of the Democratic Party, people who are anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-establishment in general, people who wanted to essentially tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and private enterprise system and transform America into Scandinavia economically, politically and everything else, going up against Conservative Republicans who thought the current government was already too big with the political backers and resources to support them.

What Bill Clinton did (what was called the Third Way) was give Democrats and Americans an alternative to the Reagan Revolution in the Republican Party that essentially want to tear down everything that was built up from the New Deal and Great Society and the McGovernites the New Left in the Democratic Party that wanted to expanded everything that was built up in the New Deal and Great Society and turn America into a Scandinavian social democracy. And to say there was a third way that center-left New Democrats could take to offer Americans to bring the Democratic Party back to power. That wasn’t about big government or small government, but using government in a responsible, limited way to empower people in need to be able to also live in freedom.

Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party that has basically been running and governing under his vision of government, or something very close to it since 1993 when he became President of the United States. The days of Henry Wallace and George McGovern are over. And now the Democratic Party at least at the leadership level has been about saving the programs that people need and work well. Empowering people at the bottom and near bottom to be able to move up in life and not have to live on government dependence indefinitely. A party that will defend the country both through law enforcement and with the military. That won’t try to overtax the middle class and respect their incomes and will be responsible with Americans tax dollars. And that to me at least is the legacy of President Bill Clinton.

The Hollywood Reporter: Victims of Hollywood's Blacklist

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t think there’s anything more Un-American and Un-liberal democratic as punishing people simply because of what they believe and their politics. But that is what the U.S. House of Representatives decided to do in 1946-47 and they had a bipartisan coalition to do that. And they had help from the Hollywood industry itself to try to stamp out as people that they saw as Un-American because they had socialist if not communist leanings. These actors, writers, directors and other people weren’t punished because they were doing bad jobs. But because they believed in a more socialistic and collectivist society for America.

It's one thing to disagree with one’s politics and I’m certainly not a Socialist or a Communist and how supporters talk about communism I’m having a hard time telling the difference between communism and socialism. But it’s another thing to say that person or those people are bad simply because they believe there shouldn’t be rich or poor and that we need a more collectivist society and economy where everyone can do well and where there is no rich or poor. They weren’t talking about tearing down the liberal democratic form of government in America and replacing it with an authoritarian state.

If you truly love America and what we stand for as a country, then you love and believe in Freedom of Speech with almost no exceptions. The right for people to believe, think and say what they believe. Without it costing them job opportunities simply because of what they believe. Doesn’t mean people can’t be questioned, criticized and even contradicted over what they believe because that is part for free speech and debate. But you simply don’t blacklist people can cost them jobs simply because of their political beliefs. You judge them based on how good they are for the job that they are a candidate for and their qualifications for that job.

Matthew Hormann: The Hollywood Ten (1950)

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t want to sound overly partisan here, but this was one of the ugliest anti-American, anti-liberal democratic, illiberal periods in American history. Where Americans were judged by who they associated with and political causes they supported and political candidates they may have endorsed in the past. Instead of being judged by their character and how they conduct themselves and the jobs that they do and what they contribute to America. And this period of the late 1940s early 1950s look like how elements of today’s so-called Tea Party treat Americans that don’t believe the way they do and share their culture and political values.

This period between 1947 or so when Republicans won back Congress both the House and Senate up until Senator Joe McCarthy’s so-called investigation of supposed Communists in the U.S. Government is Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage Neoconservative Utopia. They accused Americans of supporting things that they claim that they don’t. Which is fascism and telling Americans that they disagree with politically that they are Un-American simply for exercising their constitutional rights of Freedom of Assembly, Speech and Thought. As well as privacy which has never been popular with the Far-Right in America anyway.

People in Hollywood were simply denied jobs and the ability to earn a living simply because of who they may have associated with in the past and political candidates they may have endorsed. Not because of movies that they made or roles that they played and how they played them and how they made movies. But what they did in their personal and free time. Endorsing political candidates that members of Congress both in the Republican Party and Democratic Party and executives in Hollywood saw as dangerous. And this is one of the ugliest periods in American history both in Hollywood and in the U.S. Congress.

Jnuss Bau: The Hollywood Blacklist (1947-1960)

Source:The New Democrat

The late 1940s and all the way up to at least the mid-1950s or so was one of the most fascist illiberal and anti-liberal democratic periods of our time. I think elements of today’s Tea Party and the Ann Coulter’s of the world would’ve loved to be alive back then. Because it was a time when an American could be perceived as being a bad person simply because of who they may have associated with in the past. Especially if you were on the Far-Left in America and at the very least had socialistic and communistic leanings as far as what people like that would want to accomplish for America. A more collectivist and equal society.

This is not what America is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be that liberal democracy liberal society free society that the rest of the world wants to mimic. Where everyone has the right to be themselves and believe in what they believe whatever that they may be and be able to associate with whoever they choose to just as long as we aren’t hurting any innocent people with what we are doing. But if you were around back in the late 1940s and 1950s and you were an adult and you were somewhat Far-Left politically and you worked in Hollywood, that is not the type of country that you saw. You saw a country where you could be viewed as guilty and immoral simply because of people you associated with and your political beliefs.

We're there Socialists and Communists in Hollywood back then, I’m sure there were and probably still today. At least when it comes to Democratic Socialists especially if you look at a lot of Hollywood’s political films. But just because someone’s political views are out of the American mainstream and puts them on the Far-Left or Far-Right in America doesn’t automatically make them bad people. And it shouldn’t cost them jobs either. Which is what happened to the Hollywood Ten back then members of the movie industry who lost jobs and whose reputations suffered simply because of their political views. Or their perceived political views, or people that they associate with, or had associated with in the past.

BBC: 'The Rise & Fall of Tony Blair'

Source:Trond Repato- Tony Blair apparently meeting New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Don't ask me when and where.

Source:The New Democrat

"The Rise and Fall Of Tony Blair 2007 06 23 Part 1" 

From Trond Repato

The rise of Tony Blair I at least believe has to do with how he reformed the British Labour Party as Leader of the Opposition in the 1990s before becoming Prime Minister. 

When the Labour Party lost power in 1979 to the Conservative Party, the British economy was in bad shape because it was over-centralized, the economy was over-centralized and was too socialist with the U.K. Government owning so much of the economy and trying to run British industries themselves. The U.K. Government by 1979 owned something like seventy-percent of the economy.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 and the Labour Party which was New Labour took over they didn’t move to renationalize industries and perhaps nationalize British industries that weren’t under government control and ownership before. 

Blair Labour  didn’t reform the British welfare state by saying that people who were physically and mentally able to take care of themselves and work, no longer had to do that if they even if they were uneducated. He kept in place a lot of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s economic polices in place instead. And perhaps offended a lot of people in party who were much further to the left of him by doing that.

New Labour is Tony Blair and Tony Blair’s creation. They were out of power for eighteen-years from 79-97 because the British people remembered the state of the economy when Labour left power in 1979. And they also remembered how the British economy finally took off and became the economic power that it is today in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And didn’t want to put Socialists in power that try to take the country back to where it was in the late 1970s. 

So Tony Blair’s challenge when he became Leader of the Labour Party in 1994, was to change the perception of the Labour Party so it was no longer seen as Marxist, so socialist and central government oriented.

Tony Blair is a student of Bill Clinton and the New Democrats in America. Someone who didn’t want to transform his party into a conservative party. But someone who wanted his party to be a center-left party and not a far-left party. Someone who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take control over their own lives and live in freedom. And not have to live off the welfare state or be forced to live off of the welfare state indefinitely. Blair wanted his party to be seen as a party that would defend the country and protect everyone’s freedom. And was very successful in doing that.