David Pakman: U.S. an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Source:The New Democrat

America is a democracy in the form of a Federal Republic.  We have a Federal system with fifty-states and three levels of government. Federal, state and local.  In contrast, the United Kingdom  has a unitary system where most of the power resides in London, with the national government. We are not a democracy in the pure majoritarian sense where the majority can always rule over the minority.  This is a damn good thing that I'll get into later.

Majority will can not violate the First Amendment or any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Overturning these provisions requires agreement by two-thirds of the fifty states and two-thirds of the members of Congress.  As the Far-Right is learning in the Federal court system, government can't treat gays as second-class citizens simply because of their sexuality even if the the popular will is in favor of that.

The Far-Left and Far-Right statists are learning that just because they have the so-called popular will on their side and their ideas seem good to them,  they may not hold up as law if they are unconstitutional. The nanny statists in New York learned this in 2012 with their efforts to prohibit the sale of jumbo soft drinksfff.

I view America as a liberal democracy in the form of a federal republic. That is we elect our own leaders but also have freedom in own lives.  Our democracy needs to be guarded better to see that people with a lot of money don't have undo influence at everyone's else's expense.  The recent campaign finance rulings of U.S. Supreme Court are making this very difficult.

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.

David Pakman: MSNBC Interrupts Jane Harman On NSA For Report on Justin Bieber

Source:The New Democrat

MSNBC- "This just in Justin Bieber arrested for drunk driving which of course is our top story today. Also in the news on our backstory, New York City has just been hit by a nuclear missile attack. Hundreds of thousands of people reported dead. Several of our staff are here at NBC News World Headquarters including reporters and producers, have been unable to check in to give us a full report on that yet. Luckily our reporters and producers on the Bieber story were here all night working non-stop to give you the first breaking news footage of the Bieber story.

Our real news reporters and producers are only human and needed to go home before coming back to work. We hope to bring you coverage of the NYC nuclear missile attack on our late night insomniac news  coverage. If there isn't any Bieber related or other pop culture related breaking news. We are also following the latest Khloe Kardashian nightclub fight. And what shoes her sister Kim wore when she was out shopping last Saturday".

I already knew MSNBC was a joke when it came to news. They use Michael Moore as an actual news commentator and analyst and actually take him seriously. The prime time lineup is really nothing more than far-left commentary and a lot of their afternoon drive is that as well. And they really only seem to interested in what anti-corporate, anti-capitalist Socialists in the country think about news. Even though MSNBC is as pro-capitalist and pro-corporate as they come. And I don't believe they are fooling a lot of people, but that is what they do.

The Justin Bieber story just sort of takes the monster huge monster size cake to use an old expression, about what the so-called mainstream news media is about and interested and what the American people are interested in. And how our country and culture is so dumbed down now that they feel the need to know all about their favorite pop culture celebrities and as little about things that actually affect their real lives. Like their privacy, civil liberties, the ability to download, photos, videos, and other information of their favorite celebrities and whether their government monitors their online activities. And also little things like how much they are going to have to pay in taxes. Just  to use as examples.

David Pakman Show: 'President Obama Has a Huge Mandate'

Source:David Pakman Show- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"On the Bonus Show: Woman runs over husband because he didn't vote Romney, 1st ever cancer "chemo-bath," is intelligence declining?" 

From David Pakman 

What is a mandate? 

"an official order or commission to do something." 

From Dictionary.com. 

"In representative democracies, a mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences. The election results are then interpreted to determine which policies are popularly supported. A majority government provides a clear mandate, while plurality or coalition government suggests a lesser mandate, requiring greater compromise between parties. Parties with strong mandates are free to implement their preferred policies with the understanding that they are supported by the people. When no mandate exists for a single party, the median voter may be used to determine what policies have a mandate for implementation. The modern concept of a political mandate first developed around the 16th century and became a prominent aspect of politics after the French Revolution." 

From Wikipedia 

I voted for President Obama on election night and was proud to do that. But the Democratic Party not only didn't win back the House, they only picked up 8 seats, which gives House Republicans at least enough votes to pass what they want too, even if it's DOA in the Democratic Senate, meaning it never makes it to The White House. 

If there is any mandate here for either party, it's a mandate to govern and in a divided country, with not just a divided government, but a divided Congress as well, that means governing together to keep the government open, the economy moving, and to defend the country. 

David Pakman Show: Is the Republican Party As We Know It Gone Forever?

Source:David Pakman Show- with a look at the big political elephant in the room. (Pun intended)

"Is President Obama's reelection the end of the Republican Party as we know it?" 

From the David Pakman Show

We've heard things like this after 2006, when Democrats won back the Congress (House & Senate) and again in 2008 when Democrats won back The White House and expanded their majorities in Congress. 

But anyone who follows American politics very closely, should get a head examination and pay full price for that because it would be very worth it. But on a more serious note: anyone who follows American politics closely, knows how short the political seasons are. 

By middle of 2009, House Democrats were already in real jeopardy of losing the House. And it looked like Senate Republicans could at least pick up. bunch of seats and perhaps even take back the majority, even though they needed 10 seats in the Senate to do that. And of course we all remember 2010 mid-terms where Democrats didn't just loose heavily, but 62 seats in the House, 6 in the Senate, President Obama's reelection chances weren't looking good, they lost a bunch of legislative seats, as well as state legislatures, as well as governorships, and this was just 2 years ago. 

Come back to me in 2014 and 16, after Democrats hold the Senate, win back the House, Hillary Clinton or some other Democrats gets elected President and then we can talk about much trouble the Republican Party is in and at risk of disappearing, or at least becoming a long-term, as well as small, opposition and minority party in America. 

David Pakman Show: 'Chicago Teachers Strike Enter Day 3, No End in Sight'

Source:David Pakman- Chicago public school teachers on strike.

"Chicago teachers union strike enters its third day.

--On the Bonus Show: Scientists create memories in brains, woman finds ex-boyfriend living in attic, $8/gallon gas in NY & NJ, more...

From David Pakman 

I don't have a problem with public school teachers being paid and benefited well, just like I don't have a problem with cops, doctors, lawyers, whatever the public service profession that you are talking about. I don't have an issue with those folks being paid well either. We're talking about essential government employees, especially in a city like Chicago with is 3 million people, with a high cost of living.

But at the same time, they are government employees and have to understand that they are there to get rich. If that's what they're thinking about, they should run for office (like in Chicago, for example) or work for a private school. Everyday they're on strike, that's bad for the students whose education they're supposed to care about. Which is something that the City of Chicago also has to be thinking and worrying about as well.

David Pakman: 'Texas Judge Predicts Civil War if President Obama Re-Elected'

Source:David Pakman- Good thing this judge's 1st name is not Richard, because then people could say: "What a Dickhead." Just throwing a thought out.

"Texas Judge Tom Head is threatening to use weapons against President Barack Obama.

--On the Bonus Show: Store selling meth candy, police chief wants assault rifles in school, Romney says energy independence by 2020, much more." 

From David Pakman 

On a side not to start off with: good thing for Judge Tom Head that his parents had enough sense when they decided to name him, that they named him Tom or Thomas, instead of the guy he acts like in real life, at least when he's talking about the President of the United States, which is Richard Head. And perhaps you can figure out the rest of this line yourself. 

My point about Judge Tom Head's name is sort of like the Smith's or Jones's not naming their son, John, Tom, Joe, etc, and saying: "You know what, since our his name is so common and boring, how about our son's 1st name as well." Instead of wasting 5 minutes of their lives trying to come up with a decent 1st name for their son.

Look, I get the fact that this guy is a judge: but to paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin when talking about the government that we get and he saying that we get the government that we deserve. Tom (not Richard) Head is obviously a judge in this Texas community. So I doubt he's any worst or better than the people he's supposed to represent and preside over.

David Pakman: 'Pregnant Girl Dies After Abortion Ban Prevents Chemotherapy'

Source:David Pakman- talking about abortion in Dominican.

"Pregnant teen dies after an abortion ban delays her chemotherapy treatment for leukemia" 

From David Pakman

Since I couldn't find an official definition of what it means to be pro-life, that's not related to abortion, then I'll just have to give you my own. 

Someone who is pro-life, supports the right of every innocent American (or whatever the nationality) to live and exist and not be murdered. And yes, that can apply to abortion, but only if you believe that fetuses are people, or at the very least have the same right to life and exist as people, meaning someone who has already been born. 

From My Options: "Being pro-choice means supporting the notion that people are able to have agency over their lives, bodies, and choices. Having a child is a significant life event - and it is in everyone’s best interests that a potential parent is emotionally, financially, and physically prepared to do so." 

Yes, being pro-choice on abortion, also qualifies as being pro-choice. But if you are only pro-choice on abortion, you are only pro-choice on abortion. (Hopefully that's obvious enough) And even if you are also pro-choice on women's health care in general, but perhaps nothing else, then you are just pro-choice on women's rights as a whole. If you are pro-choice on women's health care, period, as well as all forms of sexuality, so now you are pro-choice on women's health care and sexuality. 

My point is, to be pro-choice, you have to be pro-choice. (Again, hopefully this is obvious enough) A lot of people, especially on the left-wing, who say they're pro-choice, are really just pro-choice on women's health care, including abortion and perhaps homosexuality, but are pro-state on so many other issues, including marijuana, just look at the Obama Administration. But are also pro-state on issues like gambling, pornography, education, and I''m sure other issues dealing with free speech in America. 

To get back to this abortion issue in Dominican: they do not have a pro-life bill on abortion in their country. They have an antiabortion bill instead. It's not just that the fetus died thanks to this bill, but the fetus's mother as well. So one innocent life for sure that was lost, as well as potential life that wasn't even given an opportunity to be born. 

This post was updated 6/15/2023.

David Pakman: 'The Good & The Bad About Obamacare Ruling'

Source:David Pakman- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"--What's good and bad for the future of American healthcare as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

--On the Bonus Show: Woman superglued to Walmart toilet, Texas GOP calls for end to critical thinking, Chinese dog meat market, more... 

From David Pakman

Not to sound insulting, (intentionally, anyway) but the bald guy in this video nailed it, when he said that this ruling is good in the sense that Switzerland has figured out how to get to universal health insurance, with a private health insurance system. 

What so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) need to get use to and figure out, the rest of the industrialized world does not have a socialized health insurance system. There are actually probably more countries that have private health insurance, then don't. And every time I hear someone say that America should have socialize health insurance, because the rest of the industrialized world has it, I'm going to correct them and I'll probably do it on my blog. 

We can have our own opinions, but we have to share the same facts, thats how the World works. Germany like Switzerland, another country with a significant German population, to say the least, (a little shout out for my people) has a completely private health insurance system, 

Germany a country that Socialists love and point too, has a completely private health insurance system, a country of over 80M people, with the fourth largest economy in the world, largest economy in Europe, the 2nd largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, private Health Insurance System. Not even America has that, we have a mixture of both. 

So just to be real here, (not that I'm not always real) for Socialists to ever get what they want in American health care, they need to convince perhaps 180 million Americans, that they know best what kind of health care and health insurance that everyone should have and that Americans simply aren't up to making these decisions for themselves. Otherwise we're always going to have a public/private health insurance and health care system in this country.

David Pakman: Democratic Representative Al Green Calls For Radicalized Christian Hearings

Source:David Pakman- U.S. Representative Al Green (Democrat, Texas)

"--During anti-Muslim Congressional hearings, Texas Congressman Al Green, a Democrat, calls for hearings on the "radicalization of Christians."

Source:David Pakman

To answer David Pakman's question: because the militant wing of the Christian-Right base in America, votes overwhelmingly Republican. And even the non-militant base of the Christian-Right in America, wouldn't approve of a Congressional committee (House or Senate) investigating members of their own movement, even if they are terrorists. 

But the fact is the overwhelmingly terrorists attacks in America that are based on religion, comes from so-called fundamentalist, Protestant Christians, not Islamists. For the simple reason that Muslims and Middle Easterners, are still such a small minority in America. Especially compared with Anglo-Saxon-Protestants. whether they're Southern or Northern in America.

David Pakman: 'Leaked Mitt Romney Emails Confirm He Supported Individual Mandate'

Source:David Pakman- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) running for President on CNN.

"Recently uncovered emails show Mitt Romney was hugely personally supportive of the individual mandate for health insurance while Governor of Massachusetts.

--On the Bonus Show: Too much exercise nay hurt the heart, Dutch start-up to colonize Mars, counterfeit money, more.

The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman" 

From David Pakman

If you want to know why Mitt Romney was for it before he was against it, I'll tell you anyway. In 2005-06, Mitt Romney is still Governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the bluest state in the Union, with the most Democrats in the country, per-capita, with a State Legislature that's like 4-1 Democratic. But, he was already planning to run for President, perhaps as early as 2008 when then President George W. Bush wouldn't be eligible to run for President again. 

There's only so much that any governor regardless of the state can do by themself, even through executive order. Which means he or she, has to be able to work with the Legislature, to get most of their agenda passed and be able to take credit for major accomplishments that are long lasting. 

Health care was a big issue back in the mid-2000s, as it's today and I'm thinking then Governor Romney saw health care reform as an issue where he could get ahead of the rest of the Republican Party and potential Republican presidential candidates and say that he was a Republican reformer, like a Teddy Roosevelt perhaps be able to take that issue away from Senator John McCain. If you look at the RomneyCare plan or the ObamaCare plan, it's basically the same plan, with a lot of Republican reforms in it: 

Individual mandate 

Patients Bill of Rights

Tax credit for lower-middle-income workers to buy health insurance 

Private market for health insurance and the exchanges 

But go up to 2012, Mitt Romney is not only no longer Governor of Deep Blue Massachusetts, but he's running nationally now as a presidential candidate in the Republican Party and will be their presidential nominee in 2012. 

The Tea Party Populist-Right now runs the Republican Party, by-in-large, meaning he can't get elected President without their votes. So now Mitt is running around the country for President, while at the same time he's running away from his own political career and career in government, pre-2009 and pretending what he did before 2009, never actually happened. I guess Mitt is courting the blind and death, as well as politically retarded vote for President. 

David Pakman: 'KS Pastor Curtis Knapp: Government Should Kill Gays, But They Won't'

Source:David Pakman- talking about Pastor Curtis Knapp.

"--Kansas Pastor Curtis Knapp says that the government should kill gays and lesbians, but "they won't," and then issues a bizarre non-apologetic explanation.

--On the Bonus Show: Parents who named kids after Hitler lose custody, CDC denies existence of zombies, "Truman Show" delusions, more.

The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman" 

From David Pakman 

I might know the answers to these questions already, but just in case I don't and for conversation sake, I'm going to ask them anyway. 

Why does the so-called Christian-Right (if you want to call these folks that) so insense about homosexuality and gays? Again, I think I know the answer to this, but let's layout some possibilities. 

There's a theory that the people who are the most homophobic, at least in America, are privately gay themselves. We saw that just back in 2006 with a lot of right-wing, fundamentalist pastors, who were secretly having affairs, not just with men, but teenage boys as well. We saw that back in 2002 with the scandal involving the Catholic Church as well. 

The so-called Christian-Right and I hate calling them that, because the most fundamentalist of this political cult movement, if anything seem anti-Christian, at least as far as how they treat their fellow human beings, especially people who dare to disagree with them on anything, but the so-called Christian-Right in America talks about the Ten Commandments all the time. Yet, they're guilty of at least 3 of them on a regular basis: 

thou shall not steal, thou shall not cheat, and with the militant wing of the Christian-Right, thou shall not kill. Some asshole is probably going to take this pastor (if you want to call Curtis Knapp that) and perhaps kill at least one gay person now, thinking: "Well, if the government is not going to kill gay people, I'll have to do it myself." 

The so-called Christian-Right also hates what Christians call the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have then do unto you. To put it simply; treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. They also hate what's generally seen as an American value, which is live and let live. You don't have to agree with the way someone else lives their own life. You just believe that they have the same right to life, as you do.  

Again, I think I know the answers to my own questions. So the so-called Christian-Right in America are the West's version of Islamists. We're talking about fundamentalist theocrats here, who believe in their religious and cultural values so strongly, that they believe those values should be the rule of law in America, not the Constitution. And if you violate any of them, you should pay the most serious of consequences.