Thom Hartmann: Mark Williams- 'Taking Back America'

Source:Thom Hartmann- author Mark Williams book: Taking BackAmerica.

"Progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann hosts Mark Williams, National Radio, television, print and on line news/commentary / Former Chair-Tea Party Express / Author, "Taking Back America...One Tea Party At A Time", as they discuss "What is the Tea Party plan to take over the GOP?". If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From the Thom Hartmann Show

If the Tea Party Movement and that's what it is right now a political movement not a political party, is truly about limited government not just about expanding economic freedom (for wealthy people and corporations) and fiscal conservatism, as well as protecting individual liberty, not just economic liberty (for wealthy people and corporations) but individual liberty in general which includes personal freedom, the ability for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom, then the Tea Party has a real future in American politics. Either as the conservative-libertarian wing of the Republican Party, or merging with the Libertarian Party.

If the Tea Party is not about discriminating and punishing people because they are gay or are single parents or divorced or are interested in pornography and want more limitations to the First Amendment and want to make the adultery illegal, all things that the Christian-Conservatives in America want to do, then the Tea Party has a big future in American politics as either the Libertarian or Conservative- Libertarian faction of the Republican Party. 

Perhaps the Tea Party merges with the Libertarian Party in the future or or creating their own political party thats about individual liberty and protecting constitutional rights and limited government. Things that the Republican Party was truly about up until twenty years ago or so. And not about corporate welfare, then the Tea Party movement could have a bright future in American politics. 

But if the Tea Party is not about conservative-libertarianism and instead is in bed with the Christian-Right but with an economic message, like the Michele Bachman's, Sarah Palin's, Jim DiMints's of the World, then they will just be seen as another fringe movement by voters outside of the GOP. 

But if the Tea Party is truly about limited government and conservative-libertarianism and just anti- regulation and fiscal conservatism, then the Tea Party movement could do what the Libertarian Party has never been able to do in American politics which is be taken seriously by Independent voters and by Republicans and Democrats. 

Independents tend to be somewhat liberal to libertarian on social issues and don't like to be told by government how to live. And want their low taxes and want government to be fiscally responsible and not waste tax payer money. Things that the Libertarian Party have always been in favor or but never been able to get across to Independent voters, up until Ron Paul of the last few years. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?'

Source:The Young Turks- The five Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to strike down an Arizona law that gave public financing to political candidates to match what rival candidates were raising over the spending limit." 

From The Young Turks

How Chief Justice John Roberts makes the argument that a state matching campaign contributions of political candidates as unconstitutional, because it limits what third-party Groups can do, is beyond me. And sounds like more of an ideological argument to me than anything else. 

What Chief Justice Roberts is essentially saying here: "Look, we really don't have a credible justification for our case and this is the best we can come up with. We are really making this argument because this is how we want things to be but we don't want to say that at least in public." It's sort of a because I said so argument (no offense mom and dad) that you make when you can't think of anything else to say. 

I'm really sick in tired of hearing the states rights argument, especially from so-called Conservatives who don't believe a damn thing that they are saying. And only make the argument to prevent the Federal Government from making them do something that they don't want them to do. Whether it's constitutional or not and they use it purely as a convenience and nothing else. 

When states pass a law that right-wingers don't like, like with the Arizona campaign law, they throw the states rights argument in the trash and come up with whatever argument they need that they feel will suit their needs and interests at the time. Especially as a Liberal myself who believes in states rights (as a Federalist) but actually understands what states rights is. (Which is federalism) That the States essentially have the authority to pass any law that they want as long as it complies with the U.S. Constitution. 

As a Liberal I'm not a big fan of centralization and the establishment and prefer to see more diversity with power and lean towards more personal liberty. Every time a court strikes down a campaign reform law it's just more evidence to me that the only campaign reform that could ever be passed and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. 

Full-disclosure, meaning that political candidates and incumbents as well as third-party groups, would have to disclose where they are getting the financing for their activities. Because every other reform that restricts campaign financing, generally gets struck down by some court. Whether the argument is credible or bogus.