Minister Malcolm X: The Reason Why Black Men Won't Date or Marry Black Women

Source:The New Democrat

Malcolm X seems to be saying in this video that African-Americans should be building their own livable middle class communities instead of feeling the need to have to live in mostly or majority Caucasian communities in order to feel the need to be successful in America. That African-Americans should be educating themselves so they can manage their own business’s in their own communities. Instead of feeling the need to have to live in middle class Caucasian communities to feel that they’ve made it in America. For me as a Caucasian-American, I don’t think you should base success on race. And that you need to have a country where people period can be successful and that is everyone. And where they and who they choose to live with, is up to them. Part of living in freedom in a liberal democracy.

Slate Magazine: David Weigel: Brian Schweitzer Interview

Source:The New Democrat  

The libertarian Reason Magazine posted the link for this Slate interview of Brian Schweitzer. Who happens to be just one of my favorite Democrats and a real Liberal Democrat. And I mention that for the simple reason that Reason called it, “Brian Schweitzer the Libertarian Democrat?” Well if you look at state of the current libertarian movement you know why Libertarian and Democrat tend not To go together. And yes Libertarians and Liberals tend to agree with each other on social issues and personal freedom related issues.

But Liberals and Libertarians are very different when it comes to economic policy and on foreign policy. Libertarians tend to sound more like the Far-Left social democratic Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. Than they sound like Center-Left Liberal Democrats. Brian Schweitzer the former governor of Montana which recently at least looks like a very Democratic state. At least at the state level and why the governor and the two U.S. Senators are Democrats. The one U.S. Representative isn’t, but Montana is a state that appeals to both liberalism in its real sense and libertarianism as well.

And Governor Schweitzer who was governor of Montana from 2005-13 has been labeled as a Moderate, a Conservative Democrat, a Liberal and apparently by Reason as a. Libertarian. And if you look at where Governor Schweitzer is on civil liberties and personal freedom in general like privacy, homosexuality, speech, the 2nd Amendment which by the way is also a personal freedom issue but, then look at the fact that he’s a Democrat which should be a pretty good clue that he’s not a Libertarian.

And where Governor Schweitzer is on economic policy. Like on things like infrastructure, and energy where he would like to see us use all of our natural resources. And Montana produces a lot of them and not just oil and where he is on immigration and supports a comprehensive approach. His liberal politics are pretty clear, but he’s a real Liberal whose Center-Left. And doesn’t want big government in our economic affairs either.

When I saw the Reason headline, “Brian Schweitzer the Libertarian Democrat?” I almost laughed and got me thinking maybe The Nation magazine a more socialist Far-Left magazine will have a headline something to the effect, Susan Collins the U.S. Senator from Maine a Moderate-Conservative lets say, “Susan Collins the Socialist Republican?” Which would be pretty difficult to take seriously if you know anything about Senator Collins or socialism.

Cato Institute: Richard Epstein: The Classical Liberal Constitution

Source:The New Democrat

The Classical Liberal Constitution is the United States Constitution. With all the constitutional and individual rights that it protects. The problem with the USC is not the Constitution itself, but big government supporters on the far-right and far-left who do not support the Constitution and judges they believe who do too far to protect our freedoms. And then they back politicians who look for ways to try to change our Constitution.

The way to know that our Constitution is a Classical Liberal Constitution, just look at our Bill of Rights and all the amendments to it and I’ll give you a few of them.

1. Our Freedom of Speech that gives us the right to essentially say whatever the hell we want to. As long as we aren’t libeling people or threatening people or inciting violence.

2. Freedom of Assembly the ability for Americans to get together with each other and even hold meetings. Without government getting in our ways as long as we aren’t planning criminal activities.

3. Freedom of Religion to go along with Separation of Church and State. The ability to practice or not practice any religion that we want. But that we are a federal republic and governed by our Constitution and not by any religion.

4. The Right to Self-Defense which is critical in a developed country our size with all of our wealth. The fact that law enforcement can’t protect all of us all the time.

5. Our property rights and Right to Privacy which in a way go together. The fact that government can’t come into our homes and take our property from us without just cause.

6. Our Equal Protection Clause that guarantees under law that no American is discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion which is critical in any liberal democracy.

It is not the United States Constitution that is the problem in America. But the people on fringes of both political wings who believe we have too much freedom. And have too much power as far as the political offices that they hold on both sides. So the solution to this is to elect more people on both the Left and Right who support our Constitution and will defend it.  

Baseball Hot Corner: Rob Downey: 'The St. Louis Cardinals All-Time Starting Lineup'

Source:Baseball Hot Corner- Cardinals great leadoff hitter Lou Brock, stealing home against the New York Mets.

Source:The New Democrat

"Since much of the country is currently in the grasp of a major winter freeze this seemed to be the ideal opportunity to inject a little “spring fever” into the collective Redbirds Nation mindset by naming my All-Time All-Star team for the St. Louis Cardinals. Obviously, any endeavor to name such a team requires that some criteria must be established prior to selecting the players. The criteria I settled on was the following: 1) the player must have completed at least 8 years with the Cardinals, 2) the player can be either retired or currently playing, 3) the player must have played the majority of their games at the position for which they were selected, and 4) the evaluation of each player is based on statistics compiled while they played for St. Louis. This piece is meant to be strictly fun, and the reader may disagree and have selections of their own which are completely valid. So without further ado, here goes."

From Baseball Hot Corner

" This is a montage featuring the greatest players in the history of the St. Louis Cardnals in a fantasy league-like batting order/starting lineup. This montage is based on opinion and fell free to comment as this video was created to inspire debate. Check the other MLB teams montages at: Diamond Crazies"

Source:OP Sports Inc- Cardinals OF Stan The Man Musial.

From OP Sports Inc

The thing about the St. Louis Cardinals is that they are not only one of Major League Baseball’s best franchises right now, but all-time as well. And perhaps the premier franchise in the National Baseball League and haven’t had any real off decades were they weren’t contending at all, or stuck in mediocrity except for perhaps the 1970s and 90s. Where they didn’t make the NL Playoffs at all in the 70s and only made the NL Playoffs once in the 1990s.

Which would be 1996 Tony LaRussa’s first season in St. Louis, which means there are a lot of great player from the Cardinals to choose from a franchise that has won eleven MLB World Series. Something like twenty National League Championships and a bunch of division championships. A franchise that at best plays in a mid-size market in St. Louis, but has fans and reach that goes all over the Midwest. Especially the Western Midwest.

This would be my all-time Cardinals lineup as someone whose not even a Cardinals fan.

1. Leading off Lou Brock- I would have of course Lou Brock and in the outfield. The only leadoff hitter I would take over Brock would be Rickey Henderson. Brock stole over eight-hundred bases, hit around three-hundred in St. Louis scoring a lot of runs. And even had occasional power as a leadoff hitter.

2. Hitting 2nd and playing 2nd Base Rogers Hornsby- Perhaps the best all around 2nd Baseman of all-time hitting four-hundred with power twice in his career. Had a lot of great years in St. Louis.

3. Hitting 3rd and in the outfield Stan Musial- Even with Albert Pujols I still have Stan The Man as the greatest Cardinal of all-time. Especially considering he played his whole career in St. Louis. And by the time Big Al is done he may have played about half of his career somewhere else.

4. Cleanup Hitter Albert Pujols- With the Cardinals Big Al was not only the best hitter in baseball, but I believe the best all around player in baseball. And a very good first baseman as well.

5. Ken Boyer hitting fifth and playing 3B- A very solid power hitter with the Cardinals and a very good third baseman as well. Hit over two-hundred home runs in St. Louis and drove in over a thousand runs as well.

6. Hitting sixth and doing the catching Ted Simmons- Unfortunately for Ted Simmons he played for the Cardinals in the 1970s the entire decade. When they were in transition and no longer a NL contender. So he doesn’t get the respect owed to him for being a great player. But perhaps only Johnny Bench with the Cincinnati Reds was a better all around catcher than Ted Simmons in his era. Someone who hit three-hundred, with power and would drive in over a hundred runs as well. And was a very good defensive catcher as well.

7. Hitting seventh and playing in the outfield Enos Slaughter- With Enos Slaughter you have a three-hundred hitter hitting seventh for this Cardinals team. I have him there because the guys ahead of him have better power.

8. Hitting eighth the best all around defensive SS of all-time Ozzie Smith- Almost exclusively known as a great defender before he came to St. Louis, but someone who developed into a solid 270 hitter, run scorer and base stealer who fit the 1980s Cardinals offense perfectly as a solid contact hitter. Who didn’t strikeout with great speed who was also a great baserunner.

9. Hitting ninth and doing the pitching Bob Gibson- Bob Gibson might have been a better hitter than Ozzie Smith and you could go the other way with Gibson pitching. And have Lou Brock end up following Ozzie Smith and sorta have a lineup with two leadoff hitters. But Bob Gibson I believe is the greatest big game pitcher at least of his generation. And only Sandy Koufax was better in the 1960s.

You would win a lot of championships with this lineup. A team that could hit for power that wouldn’t need to score much with Bob Gibson pitching, but would be able to do so anyway. That would’ve also had a lot of speed and would’ve been able to steal a lot of bases as well.

Robert Wenzel: Happy New Year From The Freedom Socialist Party!

Source:The New Democrat

The Freedom Socialist Party, hum that is a title that makes me want to go well, hum. Yes I know there are Democratic Socialists and Bernie Sanders comes to mind pretty quickly. But when I and a lot of other Americans and myself perhaps less than the average American think of socialism at least the economic form of it, I think of really high taxes, lots of regulations, huge centralized government, huge welfare state and that is assuming that the private sector and private enterprise is left in place. In most socialist countries today there is a private sector and private enterprise. But every other socialist characteristic is also in place. So I don’t tend to think of freedom when it comes to socialism, at least not economic freedom.I think of all sorts of centralized government programs and services. With people not being able to decide for themselves how they receive these services.

TruthOut: Cliff O'Connor & Michael Steven Smith: Imagine, If Mayor Bill DeBlasio Really Were a Socialist

Source:The New Democrat

Here some examples of why I would never live in New York City unless was making north of ten million dollars. And could actually afford it even with the NYC taxes and New York State taxes. Because there are New Yorkers and perhaps Bill De Blasio is one of them, we’ll find out soon enough who agree with. These Socialist ideas I guess proposed in this TruthOut column. As far as what they wrote, this I believe were supposed to be about NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio whose been. On the job for what two days now and what he should do if he were really a Socialist.

Yet most of the ideas being proposed like Medicare For All Single Payer can only be done by the Federal Government. Granted New York is a city roughly of eight-million people but it is still one city in a country of three-hundred. and ten million people the Mayor of New York may have more influence than any mayor in the country. Big or small city but mayors whatever the city are still very limited in how they can affect the country as a whole. And a lot of the ideas that Cliff Connor and Steven Smith are proposing can only become law from the federal level.

But just for the fun of it lets imagine a Socialist administration of New York with Mayor Bill De Blasio. And what could they do and I’ll put out my own possibilities if Mayor De Blasio is a real Socialist.

1. Increase taxes across the board to pay for all sorts of new municipal investments that I’ll mention later.

2. A new Wall Street tax of course especially on Capital Gains about fifty percent.

3. City takeover of all private schools including public charter schools.

4. Of course a city version of Medicare For All but it would be called something like NYC Care or something. With an outlaw of private insurance companies in New York.

5. The tax hikes I was talking about would go to cover most of these public investments. Including new investments in public infrastructure like in new schools and hospitals that of course would be run by. The NYC Government.

The suggestions that I’m talking about that of course I disagree with as a Liberal. But they are socialistic and could actually be passed at least in theory by New York City. The Mayor would need to propose then and the Council would have to approve them or vice-versa. But these would be things that New York could do legally because they run their own city affairs.

Ron Paul: Learn a Little Economics

Source:The New Democrat

If you are talking about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 and hour to 10-12 dollars an hour without any relief for small employers especially people who run, lets say local restaurants or hardware stores, then I would agree with you that giving low-skilled workers making seven or eight bucks and hour would hurt those business’s. But that is not the minimum wage increase that I’m on favor of. What I want to do is raise it to 10-12 dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break at least for small employers.

Which means these employers payroll costs wouldn’t go up a dime based on the minimum wage. And for any minimum wage increase to come out of this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the tax break I’m talking about is probably going to have to be part of that minimum wage increase. Otherwise it probably has about a zero percent chance of passing and even with the tax break, the chances of it passing aren’t very good to begin with.

The economics of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 bucks and hour again with the tax break that I’m talking about are very clear. You want more people working and fewer people collecting public assistance, than work simply has to pay more than not working. And that is not the case right now if you add up all the benefits that low-income people can make in dollars from public assistance. A low-skilled person can get more money not working at all and perhaps not even looking for work. Which doesn’t do that person much good or their kids much good or the economy as a whole much good.

The minimum wage isn’t a cure-all for poverty in America. You need more educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled adult population as well. But you increase the minimum wage to the point that this population makes more money working whatever the job, than not working and you make education and job training available for these adults, they can get themselves good jobs and get off of public assistance all together which benefits everyone.

Actually having the minimum wage as low as it is right now at $7.25 an hour hurts the economy, because the taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill that these employers don’t pay to take care of our less-fortunate population. And that means keeping taxes high to the point to pay for those public assistance benefits. Which any real Conservative shouldn’t be in favor of