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.

Thom Hartmann: Thor Benson: 'Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist?'

Source: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann-  Thom Hartmann & Thor Benson.

Source:The New Democrat 

I believe the best way to differentiate a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist from someone who is way Far-Left and a statist like a Communist, would be to put the two factions in separate groups. Democratic Socialists, which is the mainstream form of Socialists in the world and Marxists. Which is a fringe statist faction about as Far-Left as you get on that side of the spectrum. Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist. Fidel Castro, was a Marxist at least up until ten years, or so when Cuba started privatizing parts of their economy. But Fidel is still a Marxist on most issues like when it comes to personal freedom, which is he's against and individual rights.

What you get with Marxism is state-ownership of the entire economy, plus no individual rights. Individuals are essentially subjects, or children of the state with no rights of their own and not even allowed to think and speak for themselves. In a Marxist state the truth is what the state tells you it is. You work and live where the state says you do and I could go on, but I won't. In a social democracy the job of government is to see that everyone is taken care of, but not to try to do everything for them. Private economy, private ownership, property rights even, but a large central state and welfare state to make sure that no one has to go without anything that they need to live well.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration lets say, the Federal Government would be bigger, taxes would be higher across the board perhaps, the roles of the states and localities would probably be smaller with more power when it comes to social welfare going to the Feds. But our Federal Republic would essentially still be the same. Federalism would still be alive in America with our three levels of government Federal, state and local. Schools, banks, energy companies, hospitals, wouldn't get nationalized and most of the economy, or at least a large percentage of it would still be in private hands. But taxes would be higher, even on the middle class and the Federal Government would have more responsibility to see to it that every American is taken care of.
Source:The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann

Thom Hartmann: Caller- 'We Need to Repeal The 2nd Amendment!'

Source:Thom Hartmann Program-

Source:The New Democrat

Thom Hartmann and even the caller to a certain extent, even though he called for repealing the 2nd Amendment, actually sounded reasonable here. Look, I’m for what I and probably most Democrats call sensible gun control, or commonsense gun control. And what is that? We know who buys and has guns in America. If you’re not a criminal and not mentally handicapped in anyway and are lets say 18 or over, you could own as many guns as you want from gifts and purchases. But if you had history of violence, especially towards innocent people, whether it's criminal violence, or you’re mentally handicapped and you don’t know what you’re doing, you don’t have that right. Thats all I’m talking about.

And you did a national independent non-partisan poll, lets say from Gallup, or some place like that, you would get probably 3-5 of the vote in favor of a system like that. Before you buy a gun, or receive one as a gift, you go through a 24 hour background check. You pass that and you get, or keep your gun. You don’t pass that and you don’t. We don’t need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to accomplish that. We need a solid majority in Congress, both House and Senate that believes in commonsense and doing things like this. That also believe mental health care is as important as physical health care. That we fully fund mental health care in America. And we could do that simply through the insurance system. And stop releasing mentally handicapped people, because we can’t afford to take care of them.

And we also don’t need big government coming in and saying that firearms are only for, well big government and criminals. Other developed democratic free countries, may not have the Right to Self-Defense. But those countries also allow for their citizens to own firearms. But they also have commonsense gun control policies, to keep guns away from violent criminals. And allow for their responsible law-biding people to own and use firearms. Just as long as they aren’t shooting innocent people. We could do that in America, while keeping our 2nd Amendment in place and electing a responsible commonsense Congress and replacing just one of the Supreme Court Justices, that see the 2nd Amendment as absolute. While they compromise on the rest of our constitutional rights.
Source:Thom Hartmann

Thom Hartmann: This Week- Governor Mike Pence: Doesn't Understand Discrimination

Source: ABC News- ABC News's George Stephanopolous, interviewing Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

Source:The New Democrat

If a church whatever the church decided not perform gay weddings or inter-racial weddings or inter-ethnic weddings, they would be perfectly within their rights. Remember, Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Government won’t endorse religion or interfere without churches practice their religion. And members of churches are more than welcome to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are not equal to straights. And even express those views in public. Just as long as they are inciting violence or falsely accusing gays of lets say bad behavior. But we are not talking about that, which is why this so-called Indiana Religious Freedom Law will either get thrown out by the courts. Or Indiana will decide to scrap their own law because of the lost of economic revenue that will come to Indiana. With different states and private business’s and groups deciding not to do business in Indiana. This is not about religious freedom, but creating some new right for private groups that are open for the public, to deny access to people simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Which is bigotry and will be thrown out.
Source:Thom Hartmann

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.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Pat Buchanan: 'The Greatest Comeback'

Source:Russia Today- author Patrick J. Buchanan talking to Thom Hartmann, about his book about Richard M. Nixon.

Source:The New Democrat

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

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.[10][17] 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.[18][19][20] 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 (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has 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[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] 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.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] 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.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020."

From Wikipedia 

"Patrick J. Buchanan, The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority talks to Thom." 

From Russia Today 

"Legendary political commentator and New York Times best selling author Pat Buchanan came to the Richard Nixon Library on July 21 to discuss his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” 

Source:Nixon Foundation- author Patrick J. Buchanan, talking about his book about President Richard M. Nixon.

From the Nixon Foundation

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan over Thom Hartmann on this. And I disagree with Thom Hartmann on a lot because he is so far out in left field that it would be impossible to hit a home run out at that ballpark at least to left field. You would need a jet plane to fly the baseball and drop it over the wall at that ballpark. 

I agree with Pat Buchanan as much as it snows in Los Angeles. Because he is so far to the right that he makes the Islamic theocrats in Iran look moderate. But I probably agree with Hartmann more often than Buchanan on most civil liberties issues like the War on Drugs.

And this is why I agree with Buchanan here, because as much as the far-left likes to paint Richard Nixon as some type of right-wing authoritarian with the illegal bugging and other criminal activities inside of the White House, Dick Nixon was actually pretty moderate or progressive even as it related to civil rights issues. And even consumer and workers protections is it related to the environment and civil rights. 

As Mr. Buchanan said Mr. Nixon was way ahead of the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party on civil and equal rights and supported all of the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 60s. And even supported affirmative action in the 1970s.

Thom Hartmann: Senator Bernie Sanders On The Demand Side of Economics

Source:The New Democrat

I'm going to try to put this in a way that perhaps even a Libertarian or Tea Partier could understand. The caller in this video as Senator Sanders said laid out real well or perfectly as I would put it what demand side economics is. Which is when someone invests in something or creates a new product or service that people want at an affordable rate that investment will pay for itself because of the consumer demand that it will bring in return with people buying that product or service. And then of course the money that goes back in the economy and the jobs that get created as a result.

As far as government is concern when it comes to investment. I'm not here to try to make a case that all government investment is good and good for the economy. Or as let's say the further left is concern "all non-defense or security related investment is good for the economy". Why because people who actually believe in that do enough of that all the time. But the things that government should be investing in as it relates to the economy they should be investing in it a hell of a lot more and do it in a fiscally responsible way. And infrastructure investment is a perfect example of that.

Government awards money to construction companies to fix and build new infrastructure and now what do you have, but companies with work to do and of course they need workers to do the work. So that is where the jobs come in and now people who weren't working last week and collecting a public assistance check are working this week collecting a solid pay check for the work they do. What do they do with that money is pay off current bills that they didn't have the money for previously. But each further check goes into the economy to pay those workers bills and for them to live well and enjoy life. Which creates new jobs because of the new consumer demand.

Demand side economics is a term that I wish I've been using a long time ago. But that is exactly what it is and a role and not the only role, but a role that government has in seeing that certain projects that the country needs for the economy to be as strong as possible get done and gets done in a fiscally responsible manner. Which puts money in the economy and creates new jobs as well.

Thom Hartmann: 'We The People Are The Ultimate Arbiters!'

Source:Thom Hartmann with We The People.

Source:The New Democrat

"Thom reads Thomas Jefferson's words - We The People should have the final say on constitutionality of law!" 

From Thom Hartmann

So under Thom Hartmann's theory, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton that was passed by a Republican Congress that SCOTUS had no constitutional authority to do that. 

By the way, DOMA was a law making it illegal for same-sex marriages to be recognized by the Federal Government. Which to me at least is unconstitutional on its face and deserved to be thrown out. But under Mr. Hartmann's theory SCOTUS had no business touching that bill.

Thom Hartmann making what would be called a strict-constructionist argument about the constitutional authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Which means to put it simply, that if the actual words do not exist in the Constitution for individuals or governments or organizations to do X or Y, then those rights and powers do not exist. 

To use as an example of strict constitutional constuctionism: since the word privacy does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, Americans do not not have a constitutional right to privacy in the United States even under the Fourth Amendment. That would be a strict-constructionist argument.

I hate to break it to anyone who is not aware of this especially people on the further left in America (to be nice), but America is not a social democracy and we never have been. We are a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy which is different. And just because there's a popular majority that says Congress should pass X or Y and Congress does pass X or Y, doesn't mean Congress does actually pass that law in the first place. 

But even if Congress does pass the law that doesn't mean that law stays in place forever. And that is where the Supreme Court comes in to decide not if laws are well-written or are good laws. But to decide on the constitutionality of them and nothing more.

Thom Hartmann: Dr. Ravi Batra: A Revolution is Coming!

Source:The New Democrat

Just an editor's note: I watched about seventeen-minutes of this video and didn't hear a damn thing about any revolution.  Actually seventeen minutes before I started writing about this video and continued to watch it while I was blogging.

I'm getting tired of hearing these bold predictions about ending unemployment in a year or two, as in Dr. Ravi Batra's case, or even ten years.  These predictions are worth as much as a paper cup of creek water. You would only drink that if you were dying of thirst and had nothing else to drink.  We need to be talking about bringing unemployment down to historic levels, between 5-6 percent, since the late 1980s and getting back to the size of workforce that we had back in 2006-07.

To do that we need Congressional action.  We need to finally get back to rebuilding our infrastructure. We moved away from that in the early 2000s and have fallen deeply behind as a result. We need more access to job training and education for our low-skilled, low-income adult population.  We need to get companies to invest in those communities.  We need a real national energy policy built around producing American natural resources which create jobs inside of the United States.

We need, as well, to lower taxes on all investments and profits made inside of the United States, along with eliminating corporate welfare, so that more companies, domestic and foreign, would be encouraged to invest and make money in America.  This would get us back to strong economic growth of three-percent or more and create 200-300 thousand jobs a month with a falling unemployment rate, debt, and deficit.  Our economy would be headed back to full strength

Thom Hartmann: Our Tax System is Up-Side-Down!

Source:The New Democrat

Thom Hartmann says that he makes his living by producing services for the general public through his talk shows and writings, whereas investors like Mitt Romney make their money by investing in other companies.  When those companies do well, so does Mitt.  When they lose, so does Mitt, the differences between producing and investing.

I wouldn't go as far as Mr. Hartmann here and tax all rich people at ninety-percent. If you want people, to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, mechanics, business people etc., to be productive and successful then you shouldn't discourage them from being successful.  You shouldn't tax the hell out of them simply because they are successful.  I prefer taxation by the income you spend rather than the income you earn.

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.

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.

The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: John Farell: What is Energy Decentralization?

Source:The New Democrat

This sounds very interesting, because instead of talking about nationalizing energy or State or local governments turning energy companies into government-owned agencies, John Farrell is saying the opposite.  Instead of creating a new government or public or private monopoly, he's talking about ways to empower individuals and private groups to provide their own energy rather than use the energy provided by a public or private monopoly.

I've been thinking about this for about 7 years now I guess, as a native Marylander and still a Maryland resident who lives halfway between Maine and Florida, meaning we can get both Arctic weather in the winter and Caribbean hot and humid weather in the summer, which means northeasterly blizzards in the winter and long heat waves in the summer with no rain.  When we finally get rain, it comes as a violent storm that wipes out much of our power.

The State of Maryland has one private utility company, Pepco, which is responsible for all of the electricity for the State, meaning it has no competition and no incentive to be efficient. It provides lousy service to say the least, and on several occasions in the last few years, as in the July 2012 heat wave, we were out of power for about a week in a 100-degree heat wave because Pepco was unprepared to handle power outages for a State of 6 million people all by itself.

The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: 'Time For White-Americans to Wake the Hell Up'

Source:The New Democrat

What Thom Hartmann doesn't mention that is some of the stereotypes of the African-American community get positive play in the hip-hop community, a community that obviously has huge influence over the African-American community when it comes to music, movies, lifestyle, clothing, and I could go on but I'll spare you. But also it has to do with what hip-hoppers like to call Thug Life or Gangsta Life, and young African-American men especially see this and decide that this is how they want to be and to be seen and tend to be successful at achieving that.

Mr. Hartmann is not making any news here because, of course, people are people and just a small percentage of people of all races, not just Caucasians, see people as members of groups that should be avoided. We should all just be treated as individuals and not members of groups, which is one of my core values as a liberal. But no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to racism and having racist views and no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to the effects of being looked at stereotypically.

The far left doesn't seem to understand that no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to stereotyping one race of people. I mean, if you want to use the cab driver analogy when it comes to African-American men, with Black men, let's say not being able to get a cab because of their skin color, well guess what, not all cab drivers, in case you are not that experienced with cabs, are Caucasian and a lot of them are South Asian or Native African, such as Ethiopian, or Middle Eastern, and African-American, who are turned down for cabs by people of various races.

And it's not just one race of people who are guilty of stereotyping and it is not just racial minorities who are victims of racial stereotyping. Caucasians get stereotyped, especially if they are from the South or rural America, as being bigots across the board by people not from their culture and lifestyle. Or they get stereotyped as Ivy League or rich and they are stereotyped by people from the media and even from their own race.

Latino is not a race, but Latino men and women in this group are stereotyped as illegal immigrants and people on welfare are stereotyped as as car thieves. And not just by Caucasians and Asians, Orientals especially are stereotyped as being brilliant or intellectual and not being American, who can't speak English, and again not just by Caucasians. So racial profiling and racism are all around us, practiced by all sorts of Americans and are something in America that the far left needs to understand if they are truly interested in racial equality.  Stereotyping by perceived good qualities may be just as negative as stereotyping by perceived bad qualities.

Thom Hartmann: Richard Wolff: What to do When Capitalism Fails

Source:The New Democrat

Didn't catch the part about what Professor Richard Wolff would do when capitalism failed. He just said how he believed it would fail and why it would fail but not what would happen next. I could give you what he's said in the past about what should replace capitalism, at least in its current form in America.

And he's argued in the past for simply replacing capitalism with a Marxist economic system of state ownership across the board, and a few months ago I read a column of his arguing for economic cooperatives, which is a more Socialist form of capitalism, where the employees themselves would each own a share of the business at which they work, not government, which is different. I believe this is an excellent alternative to the corporate centralized model as long as it is not mandated by government but where management or individuals make the decision to cooperate themselves, for lack of a better word, but I didn't hear him call for these things in this video

Thom Hartmann: Taxation is Not The Solution To The Sugar Problem!

Source:The New Democrat

I agree that we should as a society be able to hold people accountable for their own bad decisions. Whether it comes to diet or anything else instead of allowing those people to pass those costs onto society as a whole. Because it us unfair for people who make good decisions in life eat and drink well, properly exercise on a regular basis, to then get stuck with the bad decisions of people who do not make good lifestyle decisions.

Where I differ with Thom Hartmann comes to why I would tax these unhealthy products. We know prohibition doesn’t work and trying to outlaw junk food and soft drinks salt and sugar would be just as costly as trying to outlaw marijuana and other illegal narcotics. So we don’t want to go down that road of arresting and locking people up for making unhealthy decisions with their own lives. Which means personal freedom and responsibility are the alternatives. You want to live unhealthy fine, but you and you alone will pay the costs of those bad decisions and no one else.

Well actually the companies who make these products would pay those costs as well. And then what you do with the money is to give it to people who live healthy. By making healthy behavior cheaper so everyone could afford to eat and drink healthy. Workout and so-forth and you reimburse hospitals who have high bills because of all the uncompensated health care. They have to give because of people using their emergency rooms.

Thom Hartmann: 'Without Government, There is Mo Middle Class'

Source:The New Democrat

Any good business person whose in business to make a lot of money and be very profitable and be able to provide very well for themselves and their families even if they are the only people they intend to benefit, it is in their best interest to have a well-skilled educated productive workforce. Even if that means paying them very well with benefits. Why because the more productive workforce you have, the more profitable the company you’ll have. And it is a hell of a lot easier for people to do good jobs and be productive if they know there’s something in it for them. And getting good money and benefits out of it.

Buy a cheap car or a cheap lawyer to use as examples and I’m not talking about a car that was discounted, or someone is basically giving you the car as a gift with a large discount, or a lawyer who agrees to work for less, or at a much lower rate than they normally do. But a cheaply made car, or an inexperienced lawyer with not much of a success record. You are going to get what you paid for those services and have to deal with the consequences of not having a good car. Or a lawyer with the experience and judgement to represent you well. And this applies to any business.

But if you invest a good deal of money in a car or lawyer, but do it in a smart way, “this is what I want and need from a car, or lawyer and this is what it’s worth to get those services” and you put the money into it, you are going to get back probably more than what you put in. Especially if you have a good case, or you take care of your car. Same thing with employees that if you invest in them and make it clear they could do well for you working for you and they are good employees who know exactly what the job is about and what you expect, that is what you’ll get plus what you put in. It’s the difference between do you see employees as a cost of doing business, or an investment in your company.

Thom Hartmann: President Obama's 2013 State of The Union: A Report Card

Source:The New Democrat

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in his first speech in the 111th Congress back in 2009, laid out the Senate Republican strategy at least if not the Congressional Republican strategy as a whole, both House and Senate when Minority Leader McConnell who may be leaving Congress if he’s not reelected in 2014, because he’s going to have a very strong Democratic challenger, but he said his number one goal was to prevent President Obama from being reelected.

The Senate minority party obviously has the power to slow and block legislation. Especially if they are a large minority that Republicans have had in the last three years. The House is a little different obviously, but what the House Minority Leader can do is tell his or her caucus, “you are not to work with the majority party on anything”. And get that memo out to their caucus. “Because we want to use everything they pass and try to pass”, that is the House majority party in this Congress, “against them whether the legislation becomes law or not.” Which is what John Boehner who in President Obama’s first Congress did as the House Minority Leader.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. Yet that person whoever they are, are limited to what they can do both constitutionally and legally. But politically as well and when you have an opposition party that is strong enough to at least slow you down in Congress and they tell you, “we aren’t going to work with you on anything. And just want to win more seats in Congress and are waiting for you to leave office one way or the other”, it makes the President’s job very difficult to get much done through law.

Thom Hartmann: 'Time to do Away With The Second Amendment?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- with a look at the 2nd Amendment.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Thom Hartmann says Second Amendment was added to keep Virginia from backing out of ratifying the U.S. Constitution.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann 

From what I’ve read over the last two weeks and blogged about, I’m starting to get the idea that I should write a new section or create something called something to the effect The Big Government Report. Or This Week in Big Government or Today in Big Government. The last two weeks alone I’ve read a Far-Right blog The American Thinker arguing in favor of tobacco prohibition. And that link with a counter reply to it is on this blog and why that would be a brain-dead idea. Last weekend I read a piece in Salon arguing for nationalizing the news in America. Another brain-dead idea and I wrote the counter reply to that which is on this blog. And now a proposal to outlaw the Second Amendment. 

As far as outlawing the Second Amendment and by the way good luck with that and I’m sure Thom Hartmann has much better things to do. And won’t spend much time on this losing cause. Because the Second Amendment is popular in liberal democratic states as well. Not just country bumpkin redneck states. And I happen to live in one of those liberal democratic states. The Free State of Maryland and also keep in mind the United States Constitution is a liberal democratic document.

But for the hell of it why don’t we imagine the Second Amendment get’s repealed. Perhaps the whole country, or all of our state legislatures are drunk when this happens. Why not because that might be what it takes to accomplish this. Next what will come from these big government far-leftists is repealing firearms in the hands of private citizens and institutions. And leaving only government which has never had and will never have the resources to defend everyone. With any ability to defend the people from violent criminals and acts of crimes.

Keep in mind American government at the federal, state and local levels, all have histories of using violence against their own people. As well as covering up violence against their own people. Look no further than the civil rights movement and we could also go back to slavery in this country. Is this really the big government collectivist state the Far-Left in America wants to create? Where we are all dependent on the big state for everything. Including law enforcement that they aren’t capable of providing everyone with. Which is a reason why we have the Second Amendment.