David Pakman: First Amendment Doesn't Protect Racist Practices

Source:The New Democrat

Sometimes it's great to be a lawyer, especially when you are talking about the First Amendment. But since I'm not a lawyer I'll have to use my skills as a Liberal instead and what I've read about the First Amendment to explain this.

The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to say whatever they want to short of libeling, harassing, or inciting violence.  Someone could have the most intelligent opinions or the dumbest and expression of all is protected as long as it does not cause legally actionable harm to others.  For instance, you can believe that your next door neighbor is an asshole or have racist opinions about that individual but you can't act upon your beliefs by physically attacking them or damaging their property.

Bankers can have negative views about American Indians but they can't them deny them their services.  They cannot foreclose on anyone because they do not like the community to which they belong.

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: 'It's Time to Outlaw Billionaires'

Source:The New Democrat

Thom Hartmann should change the name of his political segment "The Lone Liberal" to The Lone Socialist. The Lone Liberal segment on this show is where Thom Hartmann, the supposed Liberal, takes on at least two right-wingers in a debate but socialism is really what Mr. Hartmann is espousing.  He says that wealth is basically a bad thing and should be eliminated that so there are no longer extremes of income.

If you don't want Americans to be as productive as they can be and to enjoy the benefits of their productivity, then take away their incentive to be productive and successful. Taxing people at 100 percent of any income over a billion dollars or 90 percent over a million discourages our most productive people people from being productive.

Free Speech TV: Hendrik Hertzberg: New York Joins Pact to Elect President by Popular Vote

Source:The New Democrat

I like this idea of throwing out the Electoral College and going directly to a popular vote to decide the President of the United States as much as like the idea that wealthy people should get more votes than other people simply because you have more money. Instead of all voters being entitled to one and only vote, which is the way it is now, and has been since 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The whole idea of having the Electoral College is so that elections in more states matter and that presidential candidates have to campaign even in at least some small states if those states are swing states. New Hampshire being a perfect example of that but Iowa is another good example of that as well. You take that away and the Democrats will go to the Democratic big states and Republicans will go to the Republican big states to lock down their bases and run up the votes needed to win. And then perhaps go to a few key swing states to get them over fifty-percent. With the rest of the country still getting to vote but without much influence in who is the next President of the United States.

Not saying the Electoral College is perfect and I agree to a certain extent that it is undemocratic because we've had unpopular people elected President of the United States before. George W. Bush case in point in 2000. But if you are familiar with this blog at least you know that America is not a pure democracy in the sense that everything is done by majority rule to begin with. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy where our individual rights can't be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Real Time With Bill Maher: New Rules - Dead Man's Party

Source:The New Democrat

The Republican Party learned a long time ago, lets say back in 1993-94 when they were planning a   takeover of Congress, that they represent a lot of ignorant Americans whom they need to keep them in power.  These people collect the public assistance, that the party likes to bash, to support themselves because they are too dumb to finish high school and get the skills that they need to be successful in life.

I mention this because the GOP, led by political wordsmith Frank Luntz, are the masters of the word game in politics, something that Democrats have only caught on to since 2005-06, when they saw their opportunity to finally win back Congress.

So, as Bill Maher said, the estate tax is the death tax.

To quote Representative Michelle Bachmann, same-sex-marriage and pornography are threats to national security, not just immoral.

Gun regulation is complete state-control of firearms in America.

Health insurance expansion and a Patients Bill of Rights are a government takeover of health care.

To the rest of the country, which finished high school and gets its news from some place other than the Washington Times or FOX News, these charges are garbage.  But to uneducated Americans, who don't know any better, it looks completely reasonable to vote Republican in election after election to keep those immoral Democrats from taking over.

The Real News: Jessica Desvarieux: Decriminalization vs. Legalization of Marijuana

Source:The New Democrat

As a Marylander, if I was a member of the State Assembly, House or Senate, I would've voted for the marijuana decriminalization bill  because that was the only good option.  We could either continue the prohibition of marijuana or decriminalize possession so that people caught  with ten grams or less would pay a fine instead of going to jail.  This was a good bill because it diminished the so-called War on Drugs, both in Maryland and the United States.

Marijuana decriminalization is a good first step in Maryland and the best the Assembly could do this year.  Next year, Maryland will have a new Assembly and governor.  They will have the opportunity to see how marijuana decriminalization is working and consider possible next steps.

2014 is a general election year for the Maryland Assembly and governor's office.  I believe that the legal status of marijuana will be an issue in all of these races.  

Thom Hartmann: 'The Progressive Budget vs. The Paul Ryan Budget'

Source:The New Democrat

I wish I knew how many members would have actually voted for the so-called House Progressive Caucus budget.  I actually posed that question that on Google+ and Twitter.  You can see for yourself, if you have absolutely nothing else to do, if you've tired of watching  paint dry.  I can tell you how many people voted for the official House Democratic budget, the Van Hollen/Pelosi budget, 160 Democrats.

If you want to get an idea about the Progressive Caucus, think Green Party and the Democratic Socialist Party.  Look, I'm sure that there are some actual Progressives in the group, at least two, maybe more.  Most members of this caucus  are Democrats in name only because that is the way they can get elected in American politics, outside of getting elected statewide for governor or U.S. Senate.  They come from the furthest left districts in the country that have been gerrymandered so that they can be elected and reelected.

To be honest with you, I haven't actually read the CPC budget.  The CPC is made up of the most left Representatives and a few Senators in Congress.  If it is anything like the 2011 CPC budget that repealed all of the Bush tax cuts, included a fifty-percent tax hike on the middle class, and got something like forty votes in the House, then this budget never had the Chicago Cubs chance of winning the World Series of ever passing.  Most Congressional Democrats are smart enough not to vote for middle class tax hikes in an election year.

There has to be some choice between the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand plan that balances the budget by having middle class seniors pay more for Medicare and guts public assistance to people who have to have it in order to survive and the Progressive Caucus/Socialist plan which turns almost everything in the country over to the Federal Government and lets the Feds run our lives for us.  Some choice to give voters and why neither of them will ever become law.

Thom Hartmann: 'Time to Fire DEA Director Michelle Leonhart!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- Drug Enforcement Agency Director Michelle Leonhart, testifying in front of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Thom Hartmann says President Obama needs to fire DEA head Michele Leonhart over her stance against marijuana legalization." 

From Thom Hartmann 

If you still don't believe that big government in America is nonpartisan issue in America, just look at the so-called War On Drugs. Which is just another way of say Americans in favor of stupidity and insanity, because supporters of the so-called War On Drugs do the same thing and support the same things and policies over and over, expecting different results. 

The War On Drugs was a failure in the 1980s and 30 years later, basically have the same policy when it comes to the WOD, punish people for what they do to themselves and expect them to learn that hurting themselves is bad for them, by making their lives even worst and forcing them to want to get even higher, because now they're in jail or prison. 

The Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency, is example 1 of what it's like to be insane and stupid in America, because the continues to support the same War On Drugs, expecting different results, even though we already know that it's a gigantic failure and waste of America tax dollars.