Thom Hartmann: 'The Hidden History of the Supreme Court & The Betrayal of America'

Source:Thom Hartmann talking about his book.

Source:FreeState MD

"Thom Hartmann reads from his new book, the Hidden History of the Supreme Court & the Betrayal of America, explaining how the Supreme Court has spilled beyond its Constitutional powers and how we the people should take that power back." 

From Thom Hartmann 

"Thom Hartmann on the Supreme Court and Political News of the Day

Talk show host Thom Hartmann talked about decisions from the Supreme Court and other news." 

Source:C-SPAN- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann.

From C-SPAN

Left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, on his Vladimir Putin owned Russia Today TV talk show, talking about what he called: "Time For Congress To Regulate Supreme Court Clan", back in 2013. But the video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:Russia Today- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann.

My response to what Thom Hartmann said on his radio talk show and in his book, is not intended to make him look dumb or for him too look like he just woke up one day and found himself living on another planet, let alone country, not knowing what the hell he's doing here, how he got here, and how the society works. But because of his little speech about the Supreme Court, I feel the need to state the obvious, at least a little bit here. 

America has never been a pure democracy. We've never been a majoritarian or social democracy. Just because Thom Hartman or some other left-wing commentator, can site some polls (probably left-wing polls) that says higher taxes and paid maternity leave, or whatever the issue, is popular in America, doesn't mean those things become law. They still have to get passed out of Congress, signed into law by the President, and then hold up to constitutional scrutiny to the Supreme Court. But Hartmann already knows this. 

Now for my constructive critique: the reason why we have a right-wing (not just Republican) majority on the Supreme Court, because the left-wing in America, especially Far-Left Democrats, didn't bother to vote in 2014 and 2016. If Democrats bothered to vote instead of staying home in 2014, Democrats hold the Senate. If left-wing Democrats bothered to vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton is now President and gets at least 2 appointments confirmed by the Senate, to the Supreme Court today. 

The old saying that we get the politicians and government that we vote for and that's only as good as the people, that can be applied to the Supreme Court as well. As important as the House of Representatives might be, they're only the lower House in Congress. The real power in Washington and in Congress, is at The White House and in the Senate. You want different Supreme Court decisions and justices, try voting whenever you can and you'll get more people in government that you like and agree with.

Real Time With Bill Maher: ‘New Rule: Scary Socialism’

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher arguing for socialism?

Source:FreeState MD

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill argues that socialism isn’t as scary as it sounds and calls on Democrats to ramp up their rhetoric against Trump.” 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

At risk of sounding serious for perhaps a minute or few paragraphs: (depending on how fast you read) if Bill Maher’s definition of Socialist, is someone who believes in any form of government whatsoever and not just communist states or social democracies, then, no. We’re not all Socialists.

If Bill Maher is right about Socialists, then even freakin (sorry, this is not HBO) Libertarians, would be Socialists. At least the 5 Libertarians left in the world who not right-wing anarchists, pretending to be Libertarians, as if Libertarian is their Halloween costume, or something.

I agree with Maher that any government social program that’s designed to benefit everyone and funded through tax dollars, is a Socialist program. But that’s not the standard for what it means to be a Socialist, or even a let’s say modern Socialist.

To put it simply: the modern Socialist (let’s call them Democratic Socialists) believe that the world is a very big and complicated place. And therefor you need a government, especially a national government big enough to make sure that no one is left behind or has to go without, in a free, capitalist society. That’s basically what the modern Socialist, or Democratic Socialist is.

Now, at risk of hopefully sounding like a comedian: (or at least political satirist) Donald Trump and his MAGA cult when it comes to Socialists and socialism, are like closeted gay lovers who don’t want to the rest of the world to know that they’re gay. Sort of like former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who would spend his days trying to out anyone that he saw as a danger to American traditionalism and even out them as gay, while spending his nights banging multiple men and perhaps trying on different dresses for his male lovers. Or whatever gay men do in their privacy of their own homes.

I say this, well, to be funny. But also because most of Donald Trump’s MAGA cult, either lives off of Unemployment Insurance, government Farm Insurance, Food Assistance, rent control, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or a combination of all those government socialist programs.

And while MAGA is living off the backs of hard-working Americans who live and work on the West Coast, you know those Socialist communities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, or on the East Coast like in Boston, New York, Washington, etc, they’re bashing Socialists and socialism. Donald Trump’s MAGA cult is like an Oxymoron convention. Or, the national association of political hypocrites.

Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved- Debating the Role of Government in America

Source:Thom Hartmann- left-wing talk radio host Thom Hartmann, debating right-wing radio host Michael Medved in 2009,

Source:FreeState MD

“The Great Debate was a political debate between progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann against conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved on a verity of topics.”  

From Thom Hartmann

This debate reminds me of the debate that Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas, had against Conservative Republican Senate Barry Goldwater in 1961 or 62.

Norman Thomas was perhaps the leader of the democratic socialist or social democratic movement in America. And Barry Goldwater was Mr. Conservative, perhaps at least the leader of the Conservative Republicans not just in Congress, but perhaps in the entire Republican Party back in the 1960s and the conservative-libertarian movement in America at the time, even though real Conservatives back then weren’t called Conservative-Libertarians.

What you have in this debate is Thom Hartman representing the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists (even if Thom doesn’t call himself a Democratic Socialist) versus Michael Medved representing the lets say economic Libertarians and perhaps Conservative Libertarians as a whole.

So this debate is really about bigger government and perhaps even unlimited government, at least as it relates to economic policy, from Thom Hartmann, versus limited government, as least as it relates to economic policy, in Michael Medved.

AlterNet: Edward Harrison: A United States of Europe?

Source:FreeState MD

The European Union created the Euro currency in the late 1990s because at the time they were a continental union of 350M people or so. But weren’t one country that could respond as one to whatever the crisis’s or issues they were facing. They are basically the United Nations of Europe, but a lot more efficient and saw the power of the United States growing after the collapse of the Cold War and decided they need to move as well. 

Especially after the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1992 and China, India and Brazil emerging, with Japan still an economic power. And all of these countries are huge, with the smallest country being Japan 130M people. The largest country in the European Union in population is Germany 85M people at the time, but they are now down to 80M people. And were feeling a little overwhelmed with all these huge countries with all of their influence. And the EU being made up all of these mid size to big countries, but none of them with a lot of world power by themselves.

Thats why the European Union was put together sixty years ago. As a response to the power of the United States and Soviet Union. Because these Euro states knew that by themselves except for maybe the United Kingdom, they didn’t have much power on their own. But together and unified, when they agree, they feel they can match the power and influence of these world powers. Especially with the Russian Federation emerging again as both a military, but also an economic power. Thats now energy independent and with an economy thats just getting stronger. 

Russia is also  growing in influence, this is why the European Union was created and the European currency so these Euro states could have more influence in the World. On paper the European Union and Euro currency sound like good ideas. Unifying one huge market that's larger than the United States in population. And a Union of nothing but developed nations. And with four of the largest economies in the world. Britain, Germany, France and Italy. 

But again they aren’t one country, that can respond to different issues as they come up. Unlike one country with a federal government, they have to work together and be unified to make any decisions. But one country with a federal government, with an executive and legislative could do these things. And with power like that the EU could solve a lot of their problems. And meet their economic and fiscal issues in a more efficient way.

There are several reasons why we won’t see a United States of Europe. But we may see a United Federation or Federal States of Europe. And they have to do with ethnicity, language and culture, as well as nationality. This would easily be one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world with around 400M people. And would probably have the largest economy in the world. 

A brand new huge country without a majority ethnicity. Each state would have its own dominant ethnic group and language. But there are several reasons why Europe could unify. Again because they would be a major economic and world Power, that could defend themselves and dwarf Russia economically. All these States speak English at least as a 2nd Language. So they would have a unifying language that their federal government could work in as well.

I don’t see the United Kingdom ever becoming part of a Federal Europe. Too much ethnic and national pride in Britain, that already has four major ethnic groups. But the other countries from Portugal in the Southwest, to Italy in the Southeast, to South Ireland in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast, could form a Federal Europe and all of these States could have one country. That could match these other World Powers in several areas.

Salon Magazine: Michael Lind: 'The South is Holding America Hostage'

Source:FreeState MD

I seem to be writing a lot of responses lately to people who are on the lets say on the social democratic left in America who do not like our form of government to begin with because we are a federal republic. Instead of a unitary government where most of the power is centralized with the federal government. With states and local governments only being left to do what the feds allow them to do. 

The United Kingdom of Britain is a perfect example of a unitary government. And I believe they are paying a heavy price for that now. With Scotland looking to break away from Britain all together. And when Social Democrats get the opportunity to say "look-see, we told you that federalism doesn’t work and we need to become like Europe. And basically take their form of centralize government and apply that to the United States". 

Under a unitary governmental system, we would  basically only have states in name only. You try a system like that in America and you would see states looking to break away and not just in the South. But you would see states that are more open to a strong progressive or socialist form of government looking to break away because they would say "we do not need Washington telling us what we should do. We can run our own domestic affairs".

The latest thing that Social Democrats like Michael Lind and others are critiquing about federalism,who I do respect in Michael Lind’s case because you always know where he’s coming from and he can back up what he believes, but now they are using the government shutdown and Southern-Anglo (for the most part backlash) in the Tea Party a combo of Libertarians and Neo-Confederates, to say that "federalism doesn't work and we need a more centralize form of government". 

But today's Progressives who are really not lets say, but their point against federalism is that. "Look because these Neo-Confederates are in power in the House of Representatives and because of this they can keep the government shutdown by themselves even though they can’t reopen the government on their own". Are saying, "because of these Neo-Confederates we need to change our Constitution and nationalize our social insurance system and tell the states to sit down and shut up. Because Uncle Sammy is now completely in charge".

As I blogged just last night the problem with America is not our Constitution. Or our federal republican, (small r) form of government. American liberal democracy is not the problem with America, but some of our so-called public officials who are in office are. And we have a good way to deal with people who are not responsible enough to govern in America. Which is to fire them and even if we can’t defeat all the Neo-Confederates in the House of Representatives, we can defeat enough House Republicans to put power back in the hands of Democrats who not only know how to govern, but who want to and would govern responsibly.

George Carlin: Stupid Bullshit

Source:FreeState MD

Imagine a world without stupidity, hey that's the title of this blog, well sort of, sometimes it helps to pay attention to what you are writing, but sometimes it can also cost you. Because you might think that "damn I'm a bad writer" and if you are wondering about the language? Well the title of this blog should've been a very big clue. Like the size of a dinosaur actually and if that's still not big enough for you, then you are part of the stupid bullshit problem in America that's holding us down.

But seriously imagine a world without stupid bullshit and as you are imagining that, imagine a world without Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Michael Moore, Melissa Harris-Perry, to name some examples. You think a world without stupid people, well that could be big problem. Because who would we have to make fun of anymore. I thought of that and decided its a chance worth risking because. Of all the stupidity that would be moved to Siberia or some place in hell like that. As the smart people are now in charge.

Imagine a world where we had politicians and other public officials who actually knew what the hell they were doing. We wouldn't go to war over bogus evidence because we would have a President and a National Security Council who actually knew how to read intelligence reports. We wouldn't have a fiscal cliff because we would have a President and a Congress who would be smart enough not to put the country through that. We wouldn't have a sequester because we wouldn't have a President and a Congress who were smart enough not to cut things across the board.

Meaning cutting parts of government that we need as much as waste in government. You might think a world without stupid people would be a problem. Because we would have a Congress that actually knew what the hell they were doing and start being very productive as passing a lot of legislation and as a Liberal I generally believe more laws that are passed, the less freedom that we would have. But think about it this way, no more stupid people in Congress, House or Senate. And replaced by people who actually know how to write good legislation.

A world without stupid people would be a world with a no stupid zone. To sort of borrow  Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone and Billy wouldn't be allowed in the no stupid zone because it would be a world without stupidity and things like intolerance, racism, homophobia. And other types of bigotry would be eliminated. Because all the stupid people would be rounded up because they wouldn't have the same constitutional rights as smart people. And the stupid people would be sent to Siberia or some place and the smart people would rule the world.

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart- 'Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech'

Source:The Daily Beast- "They may think shutting down NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's speech was standing up for their principles, but protecting respectful dialogue is as important as ever." From The Daily Beast.

Source:FreeState MD

"Tell that to Ray Kelly. Yesterday the New York City police chief was prevented from speaking on Paxson’s campus by students angered by the NYPD’s racial profiling. Those students have good reason to be angry. Unfortunately, they’re the latest in a long line of campus activists who believe their anger trumps other people’s free speech. 

Netanyahu from speaking at Montreal’s Concordia University. In 2009, activists at the University of North Carolina shut down a planned speech by anti-immigration congressman Tom Tancredo.

There’s something deeper going on here. On the surface, campuses like Brown’s seem hegemonically liberal. But in my experience, that apparent consensus conceals a crucial gulf between students and faculty who hold left of center opinions but accept basic norms of fair play and students who consider freedom of speech a scam employed by the powers that be to perpetuate their racism/sexism/classism/imperialism/homophobia. Convinced that freedom of speech is an illusion denied them outside the university gates, they take revenge in the one arena where the balance of forces tilt their way. And they thus inject into their own campuses the totalitarian spirit they believe characterizes society at large. It’s no surprise that such activists targeted Ray Kelly, and that for years they tried to bar military recruiters. What better way to deny your government’s basic legitimacy than to turn the people it deputizes to protect you into pariahs." 

From The Daily Beast 

"A Disgraceful Decision by NPR" O'Reilly

Fired National Public Radio analyst breaks down events following Muslim comments on 'The O'Reilly Factor'" 

Source:The State of The Union- Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor in 2010, talking about being fired by taxpayer funded National Public Radio.

From The State of The Union 

I hate the term "campus liberals" to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, than they do Liberals. I’ll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy, because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn’t have any opposition. 

So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.  

My main response to Peter Beinart is that people who oppose right-wingers that they dislike right to free speech in America, aren't Liberals because free speech is as liberal a value that exists anywhere in the world. But instead these young folks for the most part are left-wing fascists, or acting left-wing fascists. It's Communists or Neo-Communists who are on the Far-Left perhaps everywhere in the world outside of Cuba and North Korea, who oppose free speech. Not Liberals because Liberals believe in liberal democracy. And free speech is as liberal as any value that you have in a liberal democracy. 

The North Star: Dario Cancovic: Capitalist Oligarchy & Socialist Democracy

Source: Portside.Org- Marxists?

Source:FreeState MD

If you want to know what Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists should be about at least in America, look no further than Senator Bernie Sanders. The only self-described Democratic Socialist in the United States Congress. But you could also look at former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who was essentially redistricted out of office, or look at Ralph Nader. And why do I say this, because these men aren’t great fans of capitalism, or private business and certainly not corporations. But understand economics well enough that you must have a certain level of private enterprise, to have a strong functioning economy.

Democratic Socialists in America understand economics well enough to know to have a functioning economy you must have at least a certain level of private enterprise. That there is indeed a limit to what government, even a Federal government can do for their people. Who need the freedom to succeed and be able to make a living for themselves and run business’s and so-fouth. Central-planning, when it comes to economics, tends not to work. And you need at least a certain level of competition to have the strongest economy possible. Where as many people as possible can succeed in it.

Now where democratic socialism comes in, is to make sure that the private sector is regulated by the public sector, is taxed by the public sector to fund all sorts of things that Socialists believe that government should be doing for the people. But also so you have a strong enough economy to fund the centralized superstate that Socialists, tend to be in favor of to provide the human services that people have to have in order to live well anywhere. Like healthcare, health insurance, education, public transportation, childcare and the regulators that the central state in the social democracy needs to make sure that private business are behaving and not abusing their workers and their consumers.

Europe, is full of social democracies like this. Especially in Scandinavia, but Britain is another good example. And these countries are functioning developed countries. But a big reason for that is because of their economies all have capitalist economic systems with strong private sectors to provide the central state with the revenue it needs to do the things for the people that Socialists want done.This is what democratic socialism is about in Europe and what it should be about in America. Which is a socialist form of capitalism. Which I know sounds strange, but it is true.

Because socialism, is a broader political philosophy, not just an economic system. But once you go past this and say capitalism is too risky and too many people get hurt while a few do very well and start talking about nationalizing industries if not all industries and having state take over the economic system, you don’t produce a socialist utopia. But you get an inefficient North Korea, or China from the 1970s. Or the old Soviet Union. A failed gigantic superstate trying to do too much for it's people.
Source:The School of Life

The Globalist: Uwe Bott- 'The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform'

Source:The Globalist- our Founding Liberals. Sorry, Socialists, live with it.

Source:FreeState MD 

"If anything, the chronic re-occurrence of the U.S. government’s failure to approve a budget as well as the repetitive quarrel over raising the country’s debt ceiling demonstrate one thing clearly: Constitutional reform is the priority in the United States. Without it, the U.S. will indeed become a failed state.

Such reform should not be difficult. At the U.S. state level there have been 230 constitutional conventions since the founding of the country, according to Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas and author of Our Undemocratic Constitution. The State of New York is currently on its fifth constitution. If the 50 states can do it, why not the nation as a whole?

Other countries, too, have a record of frequently changing or adopting new versions of their constitutions. In contrast, the constitution of the United States of 1787 seems to enjoy a sacredness only matched by some religious books.

The last change to the U.S. Constitution, the 27th Amendment, was approved in 1992. Hard though it may be to believe, it dealt with the oh-so critical issue of increases in salary for members of the U.S. Congress not taking effect until the term following the increase.

How much more myopic can one get? Maybe the country should have saved its action-oriented powder for something more earthshaking." 

From The Globalist

I’ve blogged about this before, but the problems with America do not have to do with the United States Constitution. But the some of our so-called leaders and public officials who in some cases represent a hard fringe on the Far-Right, or Far-Left. Some represent the people who send them to Washington. And some actually represent their constituents pretty well. And deserve to be reelected over and over. And to say that we should change our Constitution just because there is precedent to do so, is not a reason.

It is like saying: “I had steak for dinner last night so I might as well have it again tonight.” Without looking at what else is available to eat that night and what would be the best thing to eat that night. And if you are going to do something drastic like changing the U.S. Constitution, the document that fathered liberal democracy in the world and what a lot of other democracies are built around with all the rights and freedom and what comes from that, as well as the checks and balances and separations of powers, you gotta have a hell of a reason to change such a great document. That has only been changed I believe twenty-seven times in two-hundred and thirty-seven years.

To say we must change the U.S. Constitution because we have a faction in one party in one chamber of one branch of government, essentially holding the rest of the government and I don’t like using this word unless I’m actually talking about real hostages, but holding the rest of the government back, is crazy. The answer is to vote out people who aren’t governing responsibly.

All of these Congressional Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act, voted for it and even wrote parts of it. To change a Constitution, just because House Republicans don’t like one law, is not a good reason. What you do in that situation is what Democrats are doing now and hold them accountable: “These are the people who are preventing the Federal Government from reopening, because they’ve failed over and over to get a law killed that they hate.” And you keep pointing them out in public until their leadership gets the message. And says: “Enough is enough. We aren’t going to let this fringe ruin us in the next election.” And you hold them accountable again at the ballot box in 2014 and get them replaced by responsible adults.

If you love social democracy so much, how about living in one for a while. And see if you like that more than America. And live somewhere where elections do not have consequences. And votes in a way do not matter. Because if a majority of people and that majority just might be one and they decide that current government in power is not popular, new elections can be called right away even if there is already a new government.

America, is a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal Democracy. And we are different and we have basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us. Like being abused my a majority and we have minority rights in this country. And just because 50.1% of the country thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean they get to rule over the 49.9% of the country that says: “How we live our own lives, is none of your damn business. So why don’t you butt the hell out.” As we are seeing with the gay rights cases that going through the court system including gay marriage. Where gay marriage bans are getting thrown out. Even gay marriage bans that were popular and voted for by the will of the people, so to speak.

Social democracy, is essentially rule by majority including the majority being able to rule over the minority. And being able to tell them how they can live their own lives. And that is just not how liberal democratic America rolls. (So to speak) We say power to the individual and let them govern themselves as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. And we have constitutional rights that can’t be taken away from us that protect our privacy. And our ability to live our own lives that can’t be taken away from us by a popular vote. 

And as I said before the problem with America, is not our Constitution. But some of our public officials who do not understand it who need to be kicked out of office.

Russia Today: Anissa Noauai Interviewing Noam Chomsky- ‘Democrats are Really Moderate Republicans’

Source:Russia Today- Professor Noam Chomsky being interviewed by President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

Source:FreeState MD

“Noam Chomsky, the famous political commentator and MIT professor emeritus, has long said, “There used to be a kind of a quip that the United States was a one-party state, with a Business Party that had two factions: the Democrats and the Republicans.” But now, he says, there is still one party, but with only one faction. “It’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans,” he said. “Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right.” Find out what else Chomsky had to say about the state of American politics and the current government shutdown in his sit-down interview with RT’s Anissa Naouai.”

From Russia Today 

"Noam Chomsky: Democrats are really moderate Republicans

This channel provides bite-sized (mostly) speech or interviews of Slavoj Žižek and Noam Chomsky - the two philosophers with different views on a lot of issues. We hope this process helps to digest their opinion or views on specific issues." 

Source:Russia Today- talking about MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

From The Žižek/Chomsky Times 

RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[64] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[71]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[72] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][73] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[74]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[75] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[76][77] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[78] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[79][80] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[81][82] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[83][84] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

This is an area where I would disagree with Noam Chomsky and no this is not the only area. But if this were the case that "Democrats are really Moderate Republicans" as Professor Noam Chomsky said, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Because suggesting the Democrats are really Moderate Republicans, is saying that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same thing. Same party which is clearly not the case and Professor Chomsky essentially represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, even though I do not believe he’s officially a Democrat.

But Noam Chomsky comes from the Far-Left in the American political spectrum that includes Democrats like former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich and some other members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. And when you are that far to the Left, anyone not as far to the Left of you looks moderate or, conservative. The Far-Left in America represents maybe 10-15 percent of the country and simply not large enough to govern a major political party. Especially the largest political party in America the Democratic Party.

I’ve blogged about this before, but the Democratic Party is made up of essentially four factions:The JFK Liberal (Center-Right faction) that I come from, the FDR/Truman/LBJ Progressive, (Center-Left faction)  and the social democratic/democratic socialist, (FarLeft faction) Eugene Debbs/Henry Wallace/George McGovern and today Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. And the centrist wing the Blue Dogs in Congress who could be mainstream Republicans as well. Who tend to represent right-wing areas in the South. 

The Democratic Party isn't  a moderate party, but a politically diverse party that tends to be led by Center-Right Liberals and Center-LeftProgressives, at least when we win. The modern Democratic Party is not that different from the Republican Party pre-1990 or so, that had a Center-Right and Center-Left in it, of Conservative and Progressive Republicans.

The Young Turks: 'Martin Luther King Was a Republican?'

Source:The Young Turks- Also in the news: Reverend's Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. And have admitted to being in love with each other years. LOL

Source:The FreeState MD

"Many people talk about the "fact" that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter andelsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today's 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King's niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups havepurchased billboards making the claim. Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat. King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate...".* Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, John Iadarola (host of TYT University and Common Room), and Dave Rubin (host of The Rubin Report) break it down on The Young Turks."

Source:The FreeState MD- Pre-1980s or so, this was correct.

From The Young Turks

Pre-1964 or so I could see why Martin King was a Republican. Lets face it, the GOP was home to an overwhelming amount of African-Americans. Because of the Civil War, the freeing of the African slaves, Abraham Lincoln, etc. And then go up to the 1950s and 60s, which party is the civil rights party? The Republican Party and their Northern Progressives, especially in Congress. Who without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law doesn’t pass. Those laws would’ve not of passed in the House and Senate without Northern and Midwestern Progressive and Conservative Republicans. Like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen.

Ideologically except for civil rights, its hard to imagine how MLK would’ve fit into the Republican Party. They did have a progressive faction, but that was about civil rights, infrastructure, environmental protection and to a certain extent the safety net for people who truly needed it. But MLK was much more social democratic in nature, especially economically and when it came to civil rights and racial equality in general. And he was a dove and non-interventionist when it came to foreign policy and national security. And consistently spoke out against the size of the American defense budget and our involvement oversees. But without putting down American serviceman and women. Unlike the New Left of the late 1960s.

I can’t imagine Dr. King as a Republican or Democrat back then and perhaps not today. Today I could see him putting down Democrats as giving up on the poor and less-fortunate over things like Welfare to Work. And not doing enough to address the income gap and eliminate what he and others see as the Military Industrial Complex and Prison Industrial Complex. If Dr. King were a Democrat today, he would’ve been a member of the Progressive Caucus and perhaps one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, or creating his own social democratic movement. Or perhaps not a Democrat at all and a member of the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA. He was very Left on economic policy and when it came to national security as well, for a lot of center-left Democrats.

Russia Today: The Resident: ‘American Monarchy, It’s Time’

Source:Russia Today- the woman in this photo might just be a comedian. So like with any dictator, (take Vladimir Putin, as an example) I wouldn't automatically take her seriously on this.

Source:FreeState MD 

“America’s federal republic is failing its citizens, who more and more do not feel properly represented in their government. And there is no doubt that America is celebrity-obsessed. It might be time to rethink American government structure to establish an absolute monarchy. The Resident (aka Lori Harfenist) discusses.”

From Russia Today

“RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO “TV-Novosti” on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast “materially misleading” content.[72]

In 2012, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was “waging an information war, and with the entire Western world”.[17][74] In September 2017, RT Americawas ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT’s website and restricting access to RT’s content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia.” 

From Wikipedia

First of all, I’m not sure this commentator was being completely serious or not. And just giving a satiric editorial about the American political system and perhaps I just didn’t find it very funny. So what I’m going to do is write what I think about what she said as if she was completely serious and not out to lunch and never came back, perhaps kidnapped or whatever and having a good excuse for not reporting back to work. Which is how off the wall of a proposal this sounds like to me, for the sake of this post.

The problem with America is not the political system and certainly not the United States Constitution. The problem with American politics are people who are in it and operate it including the voters. When you combine bad, dumb, voters, especially when they vote often and if you are familiar with America, you know that dumb voters tend to vote the most, but with voters like this, you tend to get bad politicians in the crooked sense. But great politicians in the sense they know how to get reelected and who they need to vote for them to get reelected. So I can’t feel sorry for people who vote for bad people and then complain about the public officials they voted for.

Call me crazy (and I’m sure you will any way) but I don’t feel sorry for voters like that. Because as George Carlin said over and over we get what we vote for. So we have bad people who are bought off in charge of our political system. But who wouldn’t be there had it not of been for the dumb people who voted for them in the first place.

So the first problem with American politics is the people in power. But again those people who are in power were voted into office. So the solution is to stop voting for the same people. And vote for people who care about the country and their constituents, at least a lot more than the special interests who bankrolled their campaigns. So what we need in America is an educated voting public. Not a dictatorship.

Phil Donahue & Vladimir Pozner: Noam Chomsky (1994)

Source:Mike Gardner with Professor Noam Chomsky's appearance on Donahue & Pozner from 1994.

Source:FreeState MD

“Noam Chomsky Vs Phil Donahue FULL Debate”

From Mike Gardner

They are discussing the Yugoslavian civil war from the early and mid 1990s probably in 1993-94. In the early days of the Clinton Administration right before America and Europe got involved in the Yugoslavian civil war in September, 1995. And they were debating exactly if anything could be done about the situation in Yugoslavia.

New Economic Thinking: Rob Johnson: Who is John Maynard Keynes?

Source:New Economic Thinking with a look at John Maynard Keynes.

Source:FreeState MD

“An introduction to the great 20th century economist John Maynard Keynes and an explanation why the Institute is launching at Keynes’ King’s College at Cambridge University.” 

From New Economic Thinking

Just from this quote alone someone whose fairly familiar with Franklin Roosevelt at least, but perhaps not so much with Economist John Maynard Keynes, would have to assume that John Keynes was way to the Left of Franklin Roosevelt on economics. At least in President Roosevelt’s first term as President of the United States.

President Roosevelt, did send an Economic Bill of Rights to Congress in 1944-45. Where he essentially made the case that no American should go without. Meaning what people need to live well and live a good life, education, employment, health care, housing, health insurance, retirement, food, etc.

Franklin Roosevelt was a Progressive Capitalist. He believed that individuals needed economic freedom as well as organizations. But that it had to be balanced with a strong safety net for people who fall down and need help up. As well as a strong regulatory system to protect innocent consumers and workers, as well as companies from predatory behavior. Along with a strong modern infrastructure system so more people benefit from Capitalism.

FDR never believed that capitalism and private enterprise should disappear and be outlawed. But that it had to be regulated and you needed an insurance system for when capitalism fails and people need help.

As radical as the New Deal might have been in the 1930s, it was actually pretty moderate compared with what else was being offered to help deal with the Great Depression. From Communists way over as Far-Left as you can get who wanted to see American industries be nationalized and private property to be confiscated by the Federal Government. To Democratic Socialists, who didn’t want to see private enterprise ended, but that we should have a much more generous public social insurance system than we have.

John Keynes was more inline with the lets’s democratic socialist-left and where people like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is today. Private enterprise, with a generous welfare state and strong regulatory state. To balance out the private enterprise system.

John F. Kennedy: Defining American Liberalism

Source:FreeState MD- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy: Democrat, Massachusetts, accepting the 1960 New York Liberal Party nomination for President, as a Liberal Democrat.

Source:FreeState MD

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.” 

From the JFK Library

When then U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy after serving almost fourteen years in Congress (both in the House and Senate) one his first speeches that he gave after he won the Democratic nomination for president, in I believe the summer of 1960, was about liberalism. Because as a Northeastern Massachusetts Democrat he was being accused and I mean being accused as if being a Liberal is a bad thing, like being called a traitor or something, of being a Liberal and having a liberal voting record in Congress.

And Senator Kennedy gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party Convention in the summer of 1960. And what he did there was to define his liberalism and what liberalism is about and so-forth. And I’m paraphrasing here, but Senator Kennedy said something to the affect: “That if being a Liberal is about creating a superstate to take care of everyone so Americans no longer make decisions for themselves with all sorts of government programs to take care of them, or being soft of defense and not willing to do what it takes to defend the country, or being irresponsible with the taxpayers money, then I am not a Liberal.”

But then Senator Kennedy went on to say: “But if Liberal means someone who cares about the general welfare of others, someone who believes you need to be strong at home before you can be strong abroad, that freedom at home is just as important as freedom abroad and that all Americans should have access to freedom and not just the special few, then I’m a Liberal.” Now to interpret what Jack Kennedy said because today’s so-called Progressives use the term general welfare to mean big expansionist central government to take care of everyone.

Modern so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) see JFK to mean that JFK was a New Dealer, or Great Society champion who was a welfare-stater. Someone who wanted government to have all sorts of programs to take care of people.

The problem with that is what JFK said himself that if being a Liberal is someone who believes in creating a superstate to take care of everyone, then he’s not a Liberal. So it is his own words. The way I interpret what JFK said was that he wanted freedom to be available for everyone. And that government had a role, but not the only role, because JFK also believed in limited government.

In many of ways I like to look at myself as a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat. Not so much him as President, but his overall vision for America and what he believed individual liberty means and that it should be available to all Americans. Not the special few, or just for people of a certain race or gender.

That where government comes in is to assure that all Americans have access to live in freedom. At least as adults and be able to take care of themselves and not have to be dependent on government. Or private interests for their well-being, but the ability to live in freedom. Which is why my message of economic liberalism tends to be about quality education and job training for all who don’t currently have access to it.

Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King- ‘I Have A Dream Speech: August 28, 1963’

Source:Sullen Toys with Dr. Martin L. King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech.

Source:FreeState MD

“I Have A Dream Speech August 28, 1963 Martin Luther King”

From Sullen Toys

Dr. King’s I Have a Dream Speech, is the crown jewel of the American civil rights movement because it laid out exactly what the vision of the movement is, that it is about jobs, justice and equal rights. Which is why you hear Dr. King quoting the United States Constitution that guarantees certain basic human rights to all Americans, not just European-Americans, or European-American men, but the entire country. All of us all Americans share these basic constitutional rights. Which was exactly what the American civil rights movement was about a fight for freedom.

The civil rights movement is not too different what the American Revolution was about a fight for freedom as well and to have these constitutional rights. A big difference being that the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent from its start, to its core and to its end. And the fact that the Europeans who won the American Revolutionary War didn’t intend to include other Americans in the U.S. Constitution, the fact is they did when they said all men have the basic human rights. And Dr. King and his movement did was to say they are here to collect those rights that the United States Government owes them under the U.S. Constitution.

I mean just look at the words of the I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King saying that he has a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here’s someone whose economic politics at least would make him a Democratic Socialist today and yet he’s calling for a color-blind and even race-blind society. Which would actually put him to the Right of a lot of people who claim to be his supporters today, who are very race conscience and even have racial if not racist views towards Caucasians, even Jews and especially Southern Anglo-Saxons, people of British background.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- Bill O’Reilly: ‘The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.’

Source:The Young Turks talking about Bill giving Dr. Martin L. King the O'Reilly Finger.

Source:FreeState MD

“Bill O’Reilly used the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s I Have A Dream speech to attack African Americans and claim that MLK was pro-right wing. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.”

From The Young Turks

So I guess you couldn’t have your own cable talk show, if you weren’t also a psychic and mindreader. Because apparently Bill O’Reilly has some super ability to go into dead people’s minds and read what they would think 45 years after their death. Which is apparently that Bill O’Reilly was doing about Dr. Martin Luther King. A man by the way, that Mr. O’Reilly never even met, let was able to ever talk too.

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans. Still not doing as well as Caucasians, as well as Asians, regardless of ethnicity, and perhaps Latinos, again regardless of race or ethnicity. And that is still the challenge for this community to come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.

The Birch Swinger’s: ‘Bobby Kennedy’s Speech For Humanity’

Source:The Birch Swingers- U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (Democrat, New York) perhaps in 1966.

Source:FreeState MD

“Bobby Kennedy’s Day of Affirmation speech set to the soundtrack of the Social Network & Gladiator. The Day of Affirmation speech was a speech given by Robert F. Kennedy to National Union of South African Students members at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, on June 6, 1966. Kennedy, who was then a U.S. Senator from New York, gave the speech two years before his 1968 presidential campaign, which came to an end when Kennedy was assassinated on June 5, 1968 in Los Angeles.

Considered to be one of his greatest speeches, the Day of Affirmation Address, coupled with Ted Kennedy’s eulogy for Bobby, offer precious words of wisdom decades after their initial utterance.”

From The Birch Swingers

Senator Robert F. Kennedy giving a great, liberal democratic speech. And I should explain what I mean by that.

A lot of Bobby Kennedy’s supporters are quite frankly, Hippiecrats. People who I like to call limousine liberals. Those are folks who talk like hippie-leftists, who like to blame America, blame the rich, (while leaving themselves out, of course) as well as people that they like to call “white people”, or people they would call white men, or just white males, or even white boys, (except of course themselves) for everything that they think is wrong with America and the rest of the world. When the fact is, the so-called limousine liberals, are just as liberal as everyone else, who love American capitalism and liberal democracy. Meaning they’re real Liberals, not faux-leftists.

What Senator Kennedy was doing here, (I guess in 1966) was making the case for liberal democracy. And not just for European-Americans, or in this case Afrikaans , who are European-South Africans, but for everybody. And why everyone is entitled to live in freedom. Regardless of their racial or ethnic background.

This wasn’t some new-left, revolutionary, hippie speech, calling for the fall of America and “taking down the man” and calling that liberalism, which of course it isn’t.

Research Channel: 'Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice'

Source:Research Channel- Reverend Jesse Jackson speaking at this lecture.

Source:FreeState MD

“An annual event during University of Pennsylvania’s celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. King; each year, it highlights a scholar of African descent who is committed to the field of social justice. The 2004 guest was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in conversation with the Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, moderated by Dr. Tukufu Zuberi.”

From the Research Channel

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about, to see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

Had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party that could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.