Thom Hartmann: Noel Flasterstein- 'Do Americans Really Need Assault Weapons?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- from the show. 

“Thom Hartmann debates Noel Flasterstein, Attorney & National Gun Rights Expert / Second Amendment advocate Website:Gun Rights For You on the issue of assault weapons and the Second Amendment.

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 

I was probably foolishly hoping that after the Aurora shootings last Thursday night, that instead of the American media jumping right into gun control, after they got the main details of the case, that maybe they would wait at least twenty-four hours before we automatically jumped into this thirty- year old or longer gun control debate that never goes anywhere.

Except for the 1994 Crime Bill that did have an assault weapons ban and a three-day waiting period that people had to pass, meaning that law enforcement had three days to determine if you were a criminal or a convicted felon. If you passed this check, which most people who bought guns in this ten-year period from 1994-2004 period did, you were able to buy a gun. If you failed the check, not only would you not get that gun, but you probably end up back in jail.

But the gun control debate has never been something that’s unified the country. The crime bill passes in 1994, Republicans take control of Congress for the first time since 1952 in November that year. And a reason for that had to do with the crime bill, the Far-Right woke up in America and decided that they not only needed to vote, but vote Republican and get Congressional Republicans in their pockets. So they don’t have to worry about gun control again.

What I was hoping to see instead of jumping into gun control, a debate where we generally get nowhere and as long as we have a divided Congress, we won’t get anywhere, that we could talk about ways of preventing these tragedies in the future. That we could come together on instead of using another tragedy to play gotcha, that we as a country would look into the details of this tragic case.

All of the innocent victims that died that night, who thought they were doing nothing, but having a good time that night, see a movie that they were waiting to see and perhaps doing other things that night. Expecting to have a good time that night and at the very least, expecting to survive the evening. Look into the details of the suspected murderer and what possible motivation he could’ve had committing such tragic acts with so many innocent people dying as a result and how we can prevent this as a country from happening in the future.

But instead by 3-4PM Friday afternoon on CNN, 15-16 hours after the shootings, Brooke Baldwin and her guests were already jumping into the gun control debate. All of those innocent people who were killed and what does the media do, talk about an issue that just puts another wedge between the country.

With people who don’t believe the 2nd Amendment should even exist and people who believe the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be subjected to any regulations, as well as people who are more reasonable who are talking about common sense regulations, where I tend to be, not evening mentioning the fact that the shooter snuck into the theater through the emergency exit. And had the theater had done its job as it relates to security, they could’ve prevented this tragedy from happening in the first place. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senator George McGovern: 1972 Democratic Convention Speech

Source:EFAN- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) 1972 Democratic Party nominee for President 

"Here is Mcg's convention speech from 1972. He was about up the creek as you can get at this point, but a little bit more drama was on the way over his VP choice. It also did not help much when he made his speech at 2:00, unless it's Election Night that's bad."

Source:EFAN

One thing that I respect about George McGovern, was that he didn’t meet all the stereotypes that have been thrown at so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) at least when he ran for President in 1972, but ever since. 

George McGovern was a man who grew up in South Dakota and was proud of it and represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years. Winning five Congressional elections, two in the House and three in the Senate. He was not from Boston, or New York, or Washington, or Chicago, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, stereotypical left-wing cities in America, where many so-called leftists either come from, or live now. 

Senator McGovern, was an American Patriot, who served his country proudly in World War II, not a Pacifist. He was a devout Christian, not an Atheist. And also simply because of his honesty and consistency, he was against the Vietnam War when it was popular in the mid 1960s and was against it when it was unpopular the rest of the way.

George McGovern’s legacy in the Democratic Party, is a positive one, at least in this sense because of his political judgement. And he knew how the civil rights laws and the Great Society of the 1960s were going to cost the Democratic Party in the South. That the Democratic Party were going to need new voters. Similar to the Republican Party of today and they were going to need new voters. 

What George McGovern and his campaign did was change the rules of the Democratic Party to get more Democrats represented in the party: African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, women and others and making the Democratic Party a true national party. That didn’t have to have the South to be a competitive party nationally.

Human Rights Watch: ‘Sex Workers At Risk’

Source:Human Rights Watch- this woman could end up in prison for selling her sex.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Sex Workers at Risk: July 19, 2012 News Release – US: Police Practices Fuel HIV Epidemic

Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in Four US Cities”

From Human Rights Watch 

“Police in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and San Francisco are confiscating condoms from sex workers and transgender women, undermining health department campaigns to reduce HIV. Human Rights Watch reports from Jackson Heights, Queens.”

Source:Human Rights Watch- this woman could end up in prison for selling her sex.

From Human Right Watch

I know I wrote a post about our over expensive criminal justice and corrections system in January, but I found another example of why it’s so expensive: Confiscating condoms, as if we don’t have enough unwanted pregnancies in America. People raising kids before they are ready to and raising them in poverty. Or we don’t have enough people with sexually transmitted diseases in America. Or we don’t have enough people in our corrections system. Or we don’t have again what Milton Friedman called bad laws.

Bad laws are laws designed to protect people from themselves. Rather than protecting innocent people from the harm of dangerous criminals. Laws that Uncle Sam or some other big government uncle passes that says: “Your Uncle Sam knows what is best for you. Even though I never met you or don’t even know you exist. I’m Uncle Sam, which is another way of saying God and I know what is best for you”.

Laws are supposed to be for to protect the innocent, especially children from the harm of predators. Especially in a liberal democracy like America. And another big government presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the Big Government King (at least as far as I’m concern, sounds like a burger restaurant or something) now coming out for banning condoms, which would make these issues even worse.

There’s piles and piles of evidence in America that if you try to force people to stop doing something that they want to do, marijuana, gambling, and yes prostitution are all perfect examples of this, that if they want to do something bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it. And screw the consequences if they want to do it bad enough. And if you don’t believe me about the piles of evidence, just ask a parent, especially a parent with more than one kid and especially with at least one teenager. And ask them about what it is like for them to try to get their kids to do something that they don’t want to do, or stop doing something that like doing for their own good.

Prostitution being of course the oldest profession in the world, enough said is a perfect example of that. Crimes should be things that hurt other people. Not what people do with their own lives. And that’s exactly what bad laws are, or the Uncle Sam Big Brother Nanny State micromanager is about, trying to manage other people’s lives for them, because you think they are too stupid to do that for themselves. Trying to control what people do with their own lives, even if they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

I’m not going to pay for sex and would never by choice work as a prostitute. But there are many other things that I wouldn’t do. Doesn’t mean I want to outlaw them for everyone else. Because I don’t want to do them and believe they would be bad choices for me. Doesn’t mean I believe these activities should be illegal. Just means I believe people should have the freedom of choice to make these decisions for themselves.

The way to make these activities as safe as possible, is not by outlawing where they go underground and are still done anyway, but through regulation and taxation to make them as safe as possible.

Sam Seder: Michele Bachmann: 'Anthony Weiner's Wife, Huma Abedin, is a Secret Undercover Muslim Agent!'

Source:Sam Seder- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Escaped Mental Patient, Minnesota) making the case for requiring everyone who runs for office, to first have to pass a sanity, as well an IQ test, before they are eligible to run for office in the first place.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report Michele Bachmann believes the US government is being 'deeply penetrated' by the Muslim Brotherhood and she's pointing the finger at Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's aide and Anthony Weiner's wife... 

From Sam Seder

I guess my first response about this latest Michele Bachmann story is: don't you just love American democracy? I mean without American democracy, we would never see the Michele Bachmann's of the world, people who don't even have the mental qualifications to serve on a town council in some rural town, or to even serve on a local PTA, let alone to not just hold a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but to serve on the House Intelligence Committee, where apparently intelligence is not even required to serve on that committee in the first place. 

No serious, honest, decent person, would ever appoint someone Michele Bachmann to serve on or serve in office where's their a high level of intelligence and responsibility that's required to do that job well. If even George W. Bush appointed her to serve to a cabinet position when he was President, especially a national security post, she wouldn't even get through a Republican Senate back then, if all her out in right field statements and views were known back then. You would have Republican senators too embarrassed to support her back in the 2000s.

If Representative Bachmann were truly an American patriot or wanted to be one in the first place, she would go back home to Minnesota and check into the best available mental institution that's available and get the help that she needs and deserves. Or at the very least, just shut the hell up about any serious issue and person that the U.S. Government is currently involved in. She embarrasses her district and state almost every time she speaks about anything or anyone that's serious in this country.

Media Matters For America: 'Does Truth Matter At Fox, Megyn?'

Source:Media Matters For America- Fox News commentator and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

"Megyn Kelly wants you to think she's very concerned about the truth in the political process. If so, she needs to starting cleaning up a little bit closer to home." 

From Media Matters For America

Unless you agree with Fox News and like their commentary, when you hear that label of Fox News "Fair and Balanced" how you not laugh at that when you hear it, I mean just think about what advertising is. 

False advertising is something you say that you do or sell, that you actually don't and in most cases you know you don't sell what you say that you do. And example of that would be like someone selling gasoline as a healthy drink or McDonalds Big Macs and fries to help reduce obesity. Things that are completely false. Or CSPAN claiming to be the worldwide leader in sports news, would be another example. 

Fox News is in the business of selling what's left of the brand name of the Republican Party and to speak to and speak up for allies of the GOP, pure and simple.

Fox News are obviously not going to admit this: they do for right-wingers what MSNBC tries but isn't as nearly as successful for leftists in America. As well as putting down the other side, underplaying positive things from the opposition and overplaying negative news from the opposition. 

So to hear FNC's Megyn Kelly claim that Democrats and the Obama Campaign lie, is hard to take seriously when no one knows when was the last truthful thing she said about Democrats.

Thom Hartmann: 'Disclose Act - Jeff Merkley'

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat, Oregon)

"Thom Hartmann talks with Senator Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator (D-OR) Website:Senator Jeff Merkley about the Disclose Act, which would force groups like those run by Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and Sheldon Adelson to disclose who their donors are." 

From Thom Hartmann

Just for the record: I'm in favor of full-disclosure of all Federal election contributions, Congressional and presidential. If that's what in the Merkley bill, I could probably support it, or at least vote for cloture and offer some amendments to the bill. 

I think this is another opportunity for Democrats to hit Republicans where it hurts, which is their corporate and wealthy individual pocketbooks, by saying that they want full-disclosure on all corporate contributions, but not labor contributions. Otherwise you would probably see some Senate Republicans in favor of it, people like Senator's Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, perhaps Ron Johnson, and maybe a few others, if this was actually a full-disclosure bill.

As far as the filibuster: Democrats complain about it when they're running the Senate, Republicans complain about it when they're running the Senate. So this just sounds like more Washington politics to me. A couple things that never change about Washington summers: the heat and humidity, as well as the partisanship and one party trying to hit the other and then the other party trying to hit back. 

If you want real filibuster reform, you have to do it in a way that helps, as well as hurts both parties: For example: 

Any bill in the Senate that has bipartisan support and co-sponsors on it, would bet an up or down vote. 

Any bill that has first passed through committee, is paid for, would get an up or down vote. 

The minority party could not only offer amendments to any Senate bill that doesn't need 60 votes to pass, but they could offer and alternative bill to what's already on the floor and those amendments and alternatives would also get up or down votes.

No votes pass midnight and before 9AM, so the media can the voters can see what their members of Congress are doing with their tax dollars. 

40 hours of debate, instead of 20 hours and no debate after midnight or before 9AM, so again the media and voters could see what their members of Congress are doing with their tax dollars. 

But as long as you legislation in Congress (Senate or House) that's specifically designed to help or hurt one party or the other, in favor of the other, it will die in the Senate faster than fish out of water, on a hot day, on a concrete road.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Gar Alperovitz: 'Is Public Ownership the Solution?'

Source:The Real News- with a look at state ownership of the economy.

"Gar Alperovitz: When it comes to banking and other critical sectors, public ownership is the only solution" 

From The Real News

What they're talking about in this video are the big banks in America. With Gar Alperovitz arguing that the big banks in America are too big, that eventually the U.S. Government will have no choice but to nationalize them, because they're too big to regulate and are too important to let fail. That's simply not true. 

If banks become too big, there are two big things that government could do to solve that problem: you break them and create more competition and pass a law that says banks can control no more than this percentage of the banking market. And you force them to buy bankruptcy and financial insurance, so when they're facing financial difficulties, they don't get taxpayer funded bailouts, but instead collect from their insurance that they pay into, to get them through their crisis. 

My only other point here is that Gar Alperovitz was throwing around socialist, liberal, and progressive, as if they're all the same things, when he was talking about government nationalizing the big banks in America. 

The fact is the basic, classical definition of socialist (at least) is someone who believes in nationalizing private property and state ownership of property, at least as it relates to the economy, 

A Progressive is someone who believes in progress. Not the same thing as Socialist. 

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come with liberal democracy. Basically the opposite of state ownership of private property.