The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'Heartland Institute Kicks Off Climate Change Denial-a-Palooza'

Source:The Ring of Fire- Mike Papantonio, talking about the Heartland Institute and climate change.

"The conservative Heartland Institute is holding their annual climate change summit, where they hope to convince those in attendance that climate change is just a liberal hoax. It should come as no surprise that Heartland was founded and is funded by some of the biggest polluters in America. Mike Papantonio talks about what's really driving Heartland's climate change denial with Brendan DeMelle, executive director and managing editor of:Des Moq." 

From The Ring of Fire

I don't believe anyone in their right mind believes that there's no such thing as climate change. Of course I'm not a mindreader but thats my feeling. All you have to look at the weather to see that, with longer summers and colder winters and with ice melting in areas with frigid weather. 

The question is at least from the United States point of view is, what should we do on our part about it to fix it. Should we pass cap and trade and force American business's to live under regulations and taxes that foreign business's don't live under, or should we do something that would make us more competitive in the energy industry both at home and globally, that would also benefit our economy. 

As a Liberal who believes in primate markets and capitalism, I lean towards making us more competitive, economically but that would also make us more competitive when it comes to energy policy as well as our foreign policy. A national energy policy for America, that moves us towards energy independence and finally off of foreign oil, would accomplish three things by doing several things. 

First, it would benefit our economy in multiple ways, because we would open up new energy industries which would create good jobs. 

It would get us off of foreign oil, because would be relying on domestic energy instead, which would create jobs. But it would also create more competition in the energy sector, because of just oil, gas and electricity which are the three main energy industries right now. 

With a comprehensive national energy policy, there would also be a solar industry, wind industry, natural gas would be bigger in America, nuclear would be bigger in America and so would clean coal. We will need to still drill for oil and gas in America for at least ten years after we create an energy policy. But at least we would be drilling for American oil and gas and no longer importing it. 

A comprehensive national energy policy would benefit our economy because of the good jobs it would create. It would benefit our foreign policy because countries that we are currently importing oil from. We would no longer have to do that, giving them lest leverage over us. And it would benefit our environmental policy because we would be finally using cleaner sources of energy. 

If we are going to have some climate Change policy, it should be a global treaty, so that everyone is operating under the same rules.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Why Does Cenk Criticize President Obama?'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur, taking on President Barack Obama.

"MSNBC/The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur addresses the people who despise the fact that he's critical of President Barack Obama." 

From The Young Turks

President Obama said in his press conference on Wednesday afternoon that leaders should lead. My response to the President would've been that starts with you, buddy! Now perhaps I wouldn't of called him buddy, don't know that for a fact, perhaps I would've said: "That starts with you, Mr. President! We'll never know and there's no point in discussing it. 

But my point is the same leaders have to lead or nothing gets done, successful President's don't sit on the sidelines and let others work it out and then weigh in later to see what the people who actually did the work came up with. Leaders don't look to compromise right off the bat, like the President's sorry excuse for a budget back in January. 

What leaders do when they know they have to compromise in the end to get anything done. Which is what President Obama obviously has to do with a divided Congress is put on the table what they want to do: "This is my plan, if you don't like, come up with your own plan." Then the other side puts down a counteroffer and lays out what they want to do if they had all the power. And then both sides come together at the end of the day and work out a final agreement. 

This is what lawyers do and this is what skillful negotiators do and this is why successful President's are successful. This is what President Clinton, President Reagan, President Eisenhower, President Truman, President FDR did and why they were able to accomplish so much in their presidency's. 

You don't sit on the sidelines laying out goals with no plan to accomplish it. Which is what the President has been doing on the deficit reduction and other issues since he's been President. Health care reform would be another one. President's have to be President, leaders have to lead or nothing gets done. 

President's are the chief executives for a reason because the buck actually does stop with them, its not just an expression. And that means taking a stand once in a while and taking heat for it to do what's right for the country at the end. And then they get rewarded for their right decisions.

Thom Hartmann: Mark Williams- 'Taking Back America'

Source:Thom Hartmann- author Mark Williams book: Taking BackAmerica.

"Progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann hosts Mark Williams, National Radio, television, print and on line news/commentary / Former Chair-Tea Party Express / Author, "Taking Back America...One Tea Party At A Time", as they discuss "What is the Tea Party plan to take over the GOP?". 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 the Thom Hartmann Show

If the Tea Party Movement and that's what it is right now a political movement not a political party, is truly about limited government not just about expanding economic freedom (for wealthy people and corporations) and fiscal conservatism, as well as protecting individual liberty, not just economic liberty (for wealthy people and corporations) but individual liberty in general which includes personal freedom, the ability for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom, then the Tea Party has a real future in American politics. Either as the conservative-libertarian wing of the Republican Party, or merging with the Libertarian Party.

If the Tea Party is not about discriminating and punishing people because they are gay or are single parents or divorced or are interested in pornography and want more limitations to the First Amendment and want to make the adultery illegal, all things that the Christian-Conservatives in America want to do, then the Tea Party has a big future in American politics as either the Libertarian or Conservative- Libertarian faction of the Republican Party. 

Perhaps the Tea Party merges with the Libertarian Party in the future or or creating their own political party thats about individual liberty and protecting constitutional rights and limited government. Things that the Republican Party was truly about up until twenty years ago or so. And not about corporate welfare, then the Tea Party movement could have a bright future in American politics. 

But if the Tea Party is not about conservative-libertarianism and instead is in bed with the Christian-Right but with an economic message, like the Michele Bachman's, Sarah Palin's, Jim DiMints's of the World, then they will just be seen as another fringe movement by voters outside of the GOP. 

But if the Tea Party is truly about limited government and conservative-libertarianism and just anti- regulation and fiscal conservatism, then the Tea Party movement could do what the Libertarian Party has never been able to do in American politics which is be taken seriously by Independent voters and by Republicans and Democrats. 

Independents tend to be somewhat liberal to libertarian on social issues and don't like to be told by government how to live. And want their low taxes and want government to be fiscally responsible and not waste tax payer money. Things that the Libertarian Party have always been in favor or but never been able to get across to Independent voters, up until Ron Paul of the last few years. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?'

Source:The Young Turks- The five Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to strike down an Arizona law that gave public financing to political candidates to match what rival candidates were raising over the spending limit." 

From The Young Turks

How Chief Justice John Roberts makes the argument that a state matching campaign contributions of political candidates as unconstitutional, because it limits what third-party Groups can do, is beyond me. And sounds like more of an ideological argument to me than anything else. 

What Chief Justice Roberts is essentially saying here: "Look, we really don't have a credible justification for our case and this is the best we can come up with. We are really making this argument because this is how we want things to be but we don't want to say that at least in public." It's sort of a because I said so argument (no offense mom and dad) that you make when you can't think of anything else to say. 

I'm really sick in tired of hearing the states rights argument, especially from so-called Conservatives who don't believe a damn thing that they are saying. And only make the argument to prevent the Federal Government from making them do something that they don't want them to do. Whether it's constitutional or not and they use it purely as a convenience and nothing else. 

When states pass a law that right-wingers don't like, like with the Arizona campaign law, they throw the states rights argument in the trash and come up with whatever argument they need that they feel will suit their needs and interests at the time. Especially as a Liberal myself who believes in states rights (as a Federalist) but actually understands what states rights is. (Which is federalism) That the States essentially have the authority to pass any law that they want as long as it complies with the U.S. Constitution. 

As a Liberal I'm not a big fan of centralization and the establishment and prefer to see more diversity with power and lean towards more personal liberty. Every time a court strikes down a campaign reform law it's just more evidence to me that the only campaign reform that could ever be passed and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. 

Full-disclosure, meaning that political candidates and incumbents as well as third-party groups, would have to disclose where they are getting the financing for their activities. Because every other reform that restricts campaign financing, generally gets struck down by some court. Whether the argument is credible or bogus.

The Reason Party: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Libertarian Socialism

Source:The Reason Party- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about I guess his favorite philosophy: libertarian socialism. Perhaps next he'll talk about conservative communism. LOL

"Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism." 

From The Reason Party

As author Noam Chomsky has said, a Libertarian Socialist sounds like contradiction in terms at least in America. Because socialism is about collectivism and equality, making sure that no one has too much more than anyone else. And that government should be used to essentially take care of society so people don’t have to do too much on their own. 

Whereas libertarianism is about individual liberty, similar to liberalism. That the people should have the freedom to live their own lives and have maximize freedom both socially and economically. And that people should be able to make as much money as they can legally without paying high taxes.

Whereas Socialists believe that no one should make a lot more money than anyone and that they use high taxes to keep that from happening and give that tax revenue to the less-fortunate. And to finance a massive welfare state. (At least by American standards) 

A Libertarian Socialist would be a contradiction, if socialism was just about economic policy, but it's not. Socialism is not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology that also has other political views. Like on social policy, law enforcement, and foreign policy.

Socialists and I’m not talking about Communists, because communism is a separate political ideology from socialism, tend to be liberal to libertarian on social issues. Just look at Sweden for example, a social democracy that has a lot of social freedom. And they tend to be dovish on law enforcement and foreign policy as well as isolationist on foreign policy like Libertarians. 

Classical Socialism or Marxism, tend to get mixed in with democratic socialism. Tends to get mixed up with liberalism. But liberalism is a different political ideology from both classical and democratic socialism. See, socialism is a diverse and multi-demential political ideology. It's more than an economic policy.

I’m not a Socialist in any form, classical, or democratic. Not even a Libertarian Socialist. I’m a liberal and been described as a Classical Liberal, but one thing that I respect about socialism is its diversity. 

There’s Marxist-Socialism, where the state owns the means of production in society. Meaning the economy. And then there’s democratic socialism with a private sector, but that’s highly taxed and regulated (again, by American standards) to finance a massive welfare state. (Again, by American standards) It’s not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thom Hartmann: 'Private Prisons Lobbying For More Prisoners?'

Source:The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann- talking about the private prison industry in America.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] 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 operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Amanda Carey, Reporter, Daily Caller.org, joins Thom Hartmann. We're number one! That is...in the size of our prison population. The United States boasts the highest rate of imprisonment than any other developed nation in the world. But that's not enough for some people - specifically the private prison industry. The Justice Policy Institute just released a report detailing how the private prison industry is spending millions of dollars every year to lobby lawmakers around the country to pass tougher laws to throw more people in prison - ideally - private prisons. And it's working. In the last decade - the number of people in prison increased 16% - but the number of people in private federal prisons increased 120%. That's massive profits. In fact - the two largest private prison corporations in the country - the Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group - raked in nearly $3 billion in revenue last year. So isn't this a problem in American that corporations have a direct interest in throwing more and more people in prison - shouldn't we be working on ways to keep people of prison?" 

From The Big Picture

If you look at what the role of government is, protecting society and law enforcement which includes corrections (meaning prison) is something that most if not all sane sober people can agree is a role for government. Whether you are left, right center, confused, blue, red, purple, green, whatever. 

Protecting society which is the main role of prisons, so inmates can't commit more crimes against society than they already have, is the number one job for government. If government can't even do that right, which is where they generally do a good job, then they are useless and we don't need government for anything. 

People should not be making money, that is have a profit motive to keep people in prison. Prison is designed to keep criminals off the street to protect society, not designed to be profitable. Private business should not have motive to lobby government to pass more laws that ends up incarcerating more people, just so they can make more money housing more inmates or to keep people in prison longer just so they can make more money incarcerating them. 

The idea behind behind private prisons and private for-profit prisons, is that the American corrections system is too expensive. The Federal, state, and local government's, are all under tight budget crunches and are looking everywhere to save money. Including in law enforcement and corrections. All right, point taken at least on my part. I'm not going to pretend I'm physic and speak for everyone else. 

But let's examine why, shall we: we have 2M people in prison in America where we are now spending more money on prisons than on public education and public infrastructure. An easy but correct answer would be that we arrest too many people for too many things. Things that are technically crimes but that don't hurt anyone. But since government feels the need to protect us from ourselves and show us the way so to speak, they arrest us for things for the good of our health but then throw us in prison which is bad for our health. Which is a contradiction the size of the Grand Canyon. 

Things like gambling our own money, smoking or possessing or selling marijuana and getting paid to have sex, meaning prostitution, major factors in why we have so many prison inmates. I agree that our corrections system is too expensive and a money pit in a lot of cases. Fine, but before you try to solve a problem and before a good doctor anyway writes a prescription for their patients medical condition, they give the patient a diagnosis first so they well uh, know exactly what the problem is they are trying to fix. Which is exactly what we should be doing with our corrections system. 

We arrest too many people for too many things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. We don't prepare our prison inmates for life on the outside, so once they get out and most inmates do. They end up back in prison because they don't have the life skills that they need to be successful in life legally. 

For our non-violent offenders that need some type of public supervision, like robbery, shoplifting. (To use as examples) We send them to prison and in a lot of cases for long sentences and they take up space that should be saved for our actual dangerous criminals. 

All right, thats your diagnosis from Dr. Derik, here's my prescription: let's stop arresting people for crimes that don't harm others in society and I would start with the examples that I mentioned. Let's prepare our inmates for life on the outside, the inmates that we can work with. With education, job training and work, and make our prison industries exactly that: something that can benefit the prisons, inmates and society. 

And let's establish alternative sentencing for our non-violent offenders that don't represent a major threat to our economy. Like with drug rehab, halfway houses, boot camps. Things that would pay for themselves by the inmates themselves. 

Crime and punishment actually represents a role for government, because we are talking about public safety here and is something that we have to get right. And is not something we should be putting profit over safety. Which is what private prisons are about.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'How Capitalism Has Failed Us'

Source:The Ring of Fire- talking to Justin Jones, from Political Voice.

"Protesters in Wisconsin have taken to the streets to protest Republican Governor Scott Walker and his disastrous plan for their state. These protesters have been at it since February of this year. But in other areas of the country, Republicans are working to strip us of our rights, but the streets are empty. We don't have protesters shining a spotlight on the corruption in other parts of the country, and because of this, the abuse just keeps coming. That's why my next guest is so inspiring -- Justin Jones is only 17, and yet he is more politically active than most people in this country, and we were pleased to have him back on Ring of Fire with us recently." 

From The Ring of Fire 

The reason why American capitalism hasn't worked very well the last ten years, is because we as a country and especially our government have moved away from what works well. 

America has stop paying for our government operations. We stop regulating American corporations and Wall Street. And we stopped educating our students. And we cut taxes for the wealthy thinking they would spread the wealth (so to speak) for the rest of society to the point that we no longer have enough well educated students in America and we now have to import foreign workers to fill the good jobs that are left, that 10-15 years ago would've been filled by well-educated American workers. 

10-15 years ago America had the strongest economy the world (not just the largest) because we did what we are currently not doing. And where our economy was growing around 4-5% a year, 4.5% unemployment rate, no inflation, and a Federal budget surplus, and actually talking about paying down our national debt too soon, because we paid for the government we had. We were well regulating American business as well as Wall Street, we had good public schools across the country and high-earners were paying their fair share of taxes. This is the system that works, why American capitalism works. 

Our current economic system is not American capitalism, its corporate capitalism. American capitalism is about maximize choice and fair and free well regulated competition. That puts the people in charge of how they live their lives and how much money they make, where everyone including high-earners pay low taxes compared with the rest of the developed world. But we all pay our fair share of taxes based on our income. 

American capitalism is where people can make as much money as their skills and production will allow while paying their fair share of taxes. Because we have a public education system and college system that produces enough high-skilled workers. 

What we shouldn't be doing as a country is move from Cowboy Capitalism, to democratic socialism with higher taxes and a larger welfare state, to the point where the people are dependent on government to pay their bills. Instead of having the Economic Freedom to make as much money as their skills and production will allow. We need to return to American capitalism, not move to democratic socialism.