Finally Bipartisanship.....

bipartanship imagesFinally President Obama got the bi-partisanship he wanted.  Just one day after he asked for more in the State of the Union, uber-bankster Ben Bernanke was confirmed for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. There were 30 "NO" votes, including 12 Democrats and 18 Republicans in the 70-30 tally.  So we now know that although the Republicans will fight to a man to block Americans from getting health care, or the right to unionize, or consumer and fraud protections, they will reach across the aisle and join with a few sold-out Democrats when it comes to protecting the interests of the Fed and the giant banksters.

In Strange news...Stan Dai, the arrested Landrieu phone tamperer who wrote an anti-feminist parody called The Penis Monologues as a conservative activist in college, went on to work for a program designed to get women and minority students interested in espionage work. Ok - he's interesting in we get it - he's just particularly interested in spying on Democratic women....


Charles (not verified) 12 years 35 weeks ago

My math says a higher percentage of Dems voted for Bernanke. How sad that for all the rhetoric about helping Main Street, 47 dems voted to continue business as usual.

Charles (not verified) 12 years 35 weeks ago


Regarding the SOTUS decision:

Let me be honest. I am not a legal scholar. In fact I'm just a citizen with internet access and time on my hands.

I have been scouring the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website looking for the FEC decision prohibiting Citizens United (CU) from broadcasting "Hillary: The Movie". This is why the case came before the Supreme Court, right? If I remember eighth grade Civics, the case went something like this:

1. The FEC denied Citizens United broadcast of Hillary: the movie and related advertisement
2. Citizens United appealed the decision to the District Court of DC
3. The District Court upheld the decision
4. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court
5. The Supreme Court grants corporations and unions the right to advertise on behalf of or against a candidate

This is how cases get to the Supreme Court. Someone is "harmed" and seeks restitution through the courts for this harm. If this someone does not agree with the ruling, the matter can be appealed to a higher court up to and including the Supreme Court. That is my simplified understanding of how our courts work.

What I have found is the District Court filing where Citizens United claims the FEC requirements are unconstitutional but nowhere is it mentioned that the FEC declared the movie or the ads related to the move in violation of the requirements. There is no reference to an FEC finding. In fact, the District Court documents explicitly find that the FEC had no objections to the ads to be broadcast within the restricted times. In regards to the ads, CU was claiming harm when no harm had been perpetrated.

The only violation of FEC rules seems to be the vehicle CU chose to broadcast the movie. Their intent was to broadcast via veiwer-on-demand (VOD) or more commonly, pay-per-view. A very restrictive interpretation of the rule prohibits the broadcast of expressed advocacy communication on broadcast, cable and satellite networks during the restricted times leading up to an election. Since VOD are broadcast on cable and satellite infrastructure, one can make the claim that the rule applies. Again, my research has unearthed no finding by the FEC in regards to CU's broadcasting of Hillary: the Movie prior to CU filing their claim in district court. To the contrary, CU filing its complaint in district court forced the FEC to make a determination. Again, CU was claiming harm when no harm had been perpetrated.

Did Citizens United bring this case to court absent harm in a masochist attempt to expand the First Amendment beyond the Founding Fathers intentions? Did the Supreme Court find harm where no harm had been committed? Can the Constitution be abrogated on the mere idea that harm may be committed?

Need "We the People" be reminded that the Revolution was not fought solely because of "taxation without representation" as the revisionist history books would have us believe? In fact, the rebels were fighting for freedom from the tyranny brought on by a government corrupted by corporations. Namely, the East India Trading Company, which through the tax policies of the Crown, was destroying commerce in the Americas. As history has a way of repeating itself, we are again finding ourselves subdued by a tyrannical corporate steamroller and a fragmented government averse to restraining it.

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning, and When Corporations Rule the World
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man