Thom Hartmann: 'Health Care Should Be A Right To Life in America!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- arguing that health care is a right in America.

"Thom talks about healthcare and how it should be a right for every American in order to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Rep. Zack Wamp's office number: (202) 225-3271

Rep. John Conyer's office number: (202) 225-5126

White House comment line: (202) 456-1111

Contact your member of Congress: (202) 224-3121" 

From Thom Hartmann

We already have health care as a legal right not constitutional, but as a legal right, at least for emergencies. If you get sick or hurt and you end up at an emergency room and end up in a hospital for at least a period of time, the doctors have to by law give you the health care that you need in order for you to survive. At least in the short-term and if you want to go farther then that, we need Congress to pass a new law. 

You could also argue that the Right to Self-Defense (the 2nd Amendment) protects our right to health and life in America, because it gives Americans the constitutional right to defend themselves and prevent predators from hurting us. 

But this real discussion and debate is really about whether we have a right to health insurance in America and under the U.S. Constitution and current U.S. Law, we don't have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to health insurance. But we also don't have a right to food or water (at least under the Constitution and law) to food, water, housing, a good job, education, banking, everything else that human beings need to live well in America. 

If Socialists in America want the Federal Government to guarantee every American a right to health insurance, then they need to tell Americans how they (meaning the taxpayers) are going to have to pay for it. And if they're going guarantee every American the right to health insurance, then perhaps there other services that they want to guarantee as well, like housing, food, water, etc. And if that's the case as well, then they need to tell every taxpayer in America how the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. Because as the great Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman brilliantly said, there's no free lunch in America, at least that comes from government. But who would want free government food anyway? 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Paul Weeks: 'A Deeper Crisis is Coming, We Must Control the Banks'

Source:The Real News- New York City: the Capital of Corporate America. I guess NYC isn't as left-wing as it gets blamed for.

"John Weeks: Obama gave the banks time to rally opposition to severe regulations; another banking collapse is on the way." 

From The Real News 

We'll never nationalize the banking system in America. Thats a socialist pipe dream that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) will never accomplish. Nor should we because the Federal Government doesn't do a very good job of what it's runs now. Besides, the banking system represents too much of the American economy, so that would never happen. 

Give the Feds the banking system one day, then they can get the auto industry the next day, airline industry the next day and so on, making the United States look like the Soviet Union which never had a very strong economy, despite its population, land, and educated class, but we can have a much better banking system in America. 

It's not illegal in America to be a Socialist or even a Marxist, it's just very unpopular. (Regardless of whatever Millennial polling suggests) If nationalizing huge chunks of the American economy whether you're talking about health care, banking, autos, pensions, whatever it might be, if you believe nationalization is what's needed to get the American economy back to strong health, then how come you just won't come out of your political closet and admit that you're a Socialist, or even a Marxist-Socialist, because nationalization is what Marxist-Socialists have always believed in and still do.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, talking about President Barack H. Obama.

"Radio show host Thom Hartmann on the critique of Obama. More at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

As Thom Hartmann says in this interview, Barack Obama is not what the left-wing (to be kind) in America calls a Movement Progressive. Which is someone that not only believe in progress and that government can play a constructive role in American life and even in the economy, but someone who wants to radically change the face of American government and even change our form of government. 

What American leftists call Movement Progressives, the rest of the developed world calls Social Democrats or even Socialists. But because of the negative stereotypes that come from Socialist and socialism in America, because of the Cold War, as well as Communists and communism, American leftists live by Progressive or Liberal, because they're generally terrified of being known as Socialists in America. 

Barack Obama wasn't a so-called Movement Progressive when he ran for President in 2007-08, or when he was in the Senate. Mr. Obama comes from the Bill Clinton-Robert F. Kennedy faction of the party, people who are the real Progressive Democrats of the party. Which is different from the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, that Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders essentially leads today. That Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader (if he was still a Democrat) the so-called Progressive Caucus and others in the party, that want to make America like Europe.

Move On: Robert Reich- 'Puts An Offer on The Table For President Obama'

Source:Move On- left-wing political economist Robert Reich, on President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In less than three minutes, our favorite economist spells out what it's going to take to get our support."

From Move On

What so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) need to understand is what President Obama is doing, this whole campaign about class warfare, is exactly that. The class warfare campaign to get the Far-Left in the Democratic Party behind him for 2012. The exact same play or very close to it that he ran in 2007-08 to get this base behind him to win the Democratic nomination for President that he played masterfully. But then in the general election he became a Center-Left Progressive Democrat. Because he knew he needed the Democratic Party behind him, but he also needed Independent voters behind him as well.

Thats how Senator Barack Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, as well and Colorado. States that the Republican nominee has to win in order to get elected President. The President is not running this campaign because he believes in the so-called progressive agenda. If thats what so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, really) want, then they should vote for the so-called Progressive Party nominee or the Socialist Party nominee. Neither Nominee of course would win but at least they would be ideologically in sync. President Obama believes in the Democratic agenda which is why he's a Progressive Democrat.

Center-Left Democrats have similar goals of Democratic Socialists, but different policy's to accomplish those goals. You're not going to see the President offer a single payer Medicare For All plan, or a plan to nationalize big banks. Or a plan to let all of the tax cuts expire including for the middle class. Or I'm sure a lot of other things that so-called Progressive Economist Bob Reich wants to do.

So before Democratic Socialists throw all of their support behind President Obama and unless they want a President Gingrich or Romney, they have to get behind the President and Democratic Party. And then perhaps try to recruit more of their members in the Democratic Party. Or recruit their own members to the so-called Progressive Party for 2014-16, they have to get behind the President. And not cost Democrats another election in Congress or cost them the White House. Because they didn't bother to vote or voted for people who lost overwhelmingly.

President Obama wants to pass his own agenda to restore American capitalism and make it work for the whole country. The other 90-99%, not tear down American capitalism and move to democratic socialism thats common in Europe. And he knows he needs the entire Democratic Party behind him to accomplish this. He knows he needs to get reelected obviously and that Senate Democrats need to hold on. And he needs more House Democrats if not a Democratic majority with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. But he can't accomplish this with just Progressives, Liberals and Centrists. He already has those people. He needs Democratic Socialists as well and thats what this latest campaign is all about.

So for Democratic Socialists to get behind the President for 2012, as a Progressive Democrat, I believe thats great. Because that means President Obama's approval rating will go up and get near 50%. If he gets there and holds it, he's basically a lock to get reelected. But Socialists should know why he's doing this campaign, to get reelected because it's about politics. 

Wendy McElroy: 'A Feminist Defense of Pornography'

Source:Free Inquiry- from an article that Canadian author Wendy McElroy wrote about pornography.

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A

Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most

feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex

workers." 

From Wendy McElroy

I take issues like pornography, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prostitution, gambling, video games, music, movies, abortion (go down the line) as personal choice issues in how I decide whether they should be legal or not. And if they are legal or illegal and under what conditions. 

When it comes to personal choice issue where there aren't multiple victims involved, I ask this basic simple question: would society be better off if we were freer or less freer and how we decide these issues? Or should government step in and decide for the people themselves whether they can do these things or not? That would be the less freer approach. And once they are given that power, they'll probably say no. Or should we allow free people to make these decisions for themselves? That would be the free approach and if we go in that direction. 

Wendy McElroy takes it a step further and says that pornography should not only be legal, but endorses it and perhaps recommends that women (at least) should not only be viewing pornography, but perhaps personally involved in it. I don't take that approach, but instead say that free adults should make these decisions for themselves and then be personally accountable for their own personal choices. 

People who are called radical feminists or militant feminists, if there's one thing that they have in common with the Christian-Right is the belief in big government even as it relates to personal freedom and say that pornography is not only bad, but it should be illegal, because they believe that it degrades women. And in a free society like America, we all get to make these decisions for ourselves and believe what we believe. 

MOX News: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger'

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

"Michael Moore says Occupy Wall Street will only get bigger" 

From Anon Saint 

Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann talking about Occupy Wall Street. Keep in ,mind: Mr. Moore is s multi-millionaire who is very successful in America because he got himself a good education and has real talent as a filmmaker and then applied his skills and talents in the private market, capitalist system in America and then became very successful. And yet now he’s bashing the very economic system in America that allowed for him to be so successful. 

Source:MOX News- Filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore, on Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about Occupy Wall Street.

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading so-called Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I’m not sure Mr. Moore has much credibility on this issue, bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow. (Sort of like peanut butter or chocolate sauce on a hot dog) 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Ed Schultz on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Ed Schulz, speaking to Paul Jay about President Barack Obama, in 2009.

"Schultz: If the President waivers on public health care and jobs, he could be a 'one term wonder'

From The Real News 

Ed Schultz sounding very practical and pragmatic about his analysis about President Barack Obama (the pragmatic Progressive: if you will) and arguing that President Obama inherited a huge mess in 2009 and he's doing the best with the hand that was dealt to him and that he's made real progress so far. Talking about the Recover Act and SCHIP. (State Children's Health Insurance Program) Which is what you generally don't get from left-wing political commentators in America, especially about President Barack Obama. 

What you got from Paul Jay in this interview was the usual Far-Left talking points that President Obama is simply not doing enough, that he's not progressive enough (which is code for not socialist enough) and arguing that Democrats have The White House and Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate and that Democrats should be doing a lot more. That they're not left-wing enough. 

Generally when you get a discussion like this between two leftists when they're talking about mainstream Democrats, is they are both talking like Democrats are selling them out or screwing them over and they're really just moderate Republicans. (To paraphrase Noam Chomsky) What you get here is one of the leftists (Paul Jay) essentially arguing that the Democrats aren't left enough, with Ed Schultz showing some real patience and practicality.