Recent comments

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago


    With reference to 'whining women' What you really want is control and power and it makes you feel tough to be able to disrespect your Mother, yes?

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    slave labor and wall street....china is controlling both our political parties and have face companies lobbies writing our trade policy. china is the wall street k- street capital hill communist party! republicans at the forefront, we are nothing but expendable consumers and they do not care if we have a standard of living anymore that fits the cliche's we have forced to worship....

  • May 25th 2009 - Monday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Hey Richard,

    Today is Tuesday and you're posting on the Monday page.

    But the attorney you're asking about is Alan Jablonski.

    His website is and he has a book out"
    Successfully Navigating the Mortgage Maze"

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Who do these people suppose will be buying all these cars in America, when nobody has jobs anymore?

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    If I had edited my prior comment properly, I would have said I see very little morality and ethics coming from the "women's choice" camp on the abortion. So there.

  • May 25th 2009 - Monday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    My anger burns hotter than a thousand white hot suns for the sins they committed in our name. We, the People, are better than these fear-filled plutocrats have inflicted. The blood of our blood has been spilt for hundreds of years in the name of Justice and they defaced all that we have readily given.

    We, the People, have been broken all belief by those who are supposed to be the guardians of the Commons and the protectors of our Constitution.

    The chicken-hawk bastards in the just prior Administration intentionally chose and willfully planned and executed TORTURE in your and mine and We, the People's name. They violated everything every principle America stands for to forward a fascist plutocratic land grab and seared their mark on the face of our planet and in history in the blood of American troops and Iraqi citizens.

    The current Administration under the expert hand of that just right of the middle of the road centrist is fighting to avoid doing the righteous thing and deal with the situation in a JUST and LAWFUL manner. They do this on the dirt hollowed by the name of a man who commanded that no man be tortured and a goddess named for justice and inclusion of all.

    The great and good goddess Columbia wears a blindfold and carries scales and sword for all humans. It is time that she be allowed to do her job.

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    I remember when there was concern and worry about voting for a Roman Catholic as president . This would be the 6th Catholic, if confirmed to sit on the court. Thomas was a convert after arriving on the court. He attended church with Scalia whom he admires so much that he is not required to even think for himself. I'm concerned that this could well be the tipping point for overturning Roe v Wade. I know that Sonia was divorced, but I'm not sure if she had that marriage annulled. Perhaps this no big deal since the Pope was a former member of the Hitler Youth. As an athiest, I would like to see a secular person on the court. It's a damn shame that to deny the BS of relgion would be political suicide.

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    First I'd like to say that these whining women who are calling need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and examine the blanket stereotypes and prejudices they harbor; to me, it sounds like misandry and feminist propaganda. Frankly, onthe abortion issue, I see very ethical or moral discussion coming from the "women's choice" camp--it's always about "me, myself and I." I'd also like to point out that these complaints against Obama's Supreme Court nominee has nothing to do with her being woman; if she a far-right activist, the "cons" would have no issue. What they do have an issue with, even if they don't express it out loud, is that she is Hispanic, period.

    I'd also like to mention that many on the left have accused Barack Obama of back-tracking on campaign promises, but in the case of closing Guantanamo, while initially the idea resonated with many Americans' sense of guilt, on reflection irrational fear has taken hold. I’ve spoken with otherwise left-leaning persons who don’t want the prison closed because they have this fear that these people will end-up on the streets their town. They even have this fear of the effect detainees might have on the general population of prisoners, although it is unlikely that they will be jailed among them. Meanwhile, the U.S. Sentate voted overwhelmingly against funding for closing Guantanamo, and Dick Cheney is continuing his campaign of fear and paranoia, trying to convince the gullible that the Bush administration placed a high priority on obtaining “truth”—such as from paid opportunistic Iraqi expatriates, and through torture.

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    What women really fear? FORCED PREGNANCY- it is already done in the meat industry- they chaining down of pig mothers and their piglets.

    I am very pleased with what I saw of President Obama's pick today. Also, did you hear President Obama say today that she was a Republican nominee?

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    May we be reminded that Democracy was borrowered from the Native Americans who appointed women to power because every deciscion made within a tribe whould have to benefit the 7th generation and beacuse women can reproduce, theey should have this power and influence...

  • May 25th 2009 - Monday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Found it: Alan Jablonski of

    Can be contacted at or by phone at (562) 343-5383.

    Navigating the Mortgage Maze.

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Oops - someone beat me to the first post. :-)

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Sorry, folks, but the first post in here today is gonna be TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC with regard to anything Thom intends to discuss today.

    I read a fascinating and important book over the holiday weekend, Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea". It is about how a true American hero has been waging the "war on terror", since 1993, by building schools, mainly for girls, in the area that has been called "the most dangerous region on Earth for an American", the mountainous region along the borders between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India.

    Do you all remember how, around this time of year over the past 8 years, we'd get a look, and share a laugh and a wink, over Dubya's alleged summer "reading" list? I would suggest that THIS book should be MANDATORY summer reading for President Obama, Secretaries Clinton and Gates and for YOUR Senators and Congressmembers (oh - and for you, too)!

    Below is a link to Amazon's info page for this amazing book. Get a copy for yourself, and forward the link to anyone who you think might be able to lend a hand with this struggle.

    Thank you.

  • May 26th - Tuesday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Sotomayor for SCOTUS: Republicon Senators Demand "Up-or-Down Vote"

    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
    "They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." (4/21/05 statement)

    Sen. Orrin Hatch
    "...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." (Orrin Hatch discusses debate in Senate..., NPR, 5/19/05)

    Sen. Jon Kyl
    "All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote." (Kyl Calls for `Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees,' Capitol Hill Press Releases, 5/18/05)

    Sen. Rick Santorum
    "The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve." (Should the Senate end Filibusters When Considering Judicial Appointments, Duluth News Tribune, 4/25/05)

    Sen. Trent Lott
    "...I felt they deserved up-or-down votes. It was not a popular action with my colleagues, but I didn't think it was right to filibuster judicial nominees then. And it's not right now." (Lott Sets the Record Straight on Judicial Confirmation Issue, 4/26/05)

    Sen. John Cornyn
    "And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat." (U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees, CQ Transcriptions, 5/9/05)

    Sen. Mitch McConnell
    "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Senators Durbin & McConnell Discuss Issues Facing the Senate, CNN, 5/22/05)

    Sen. Jeff Sessions
    "This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." (U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster, CQ Transcriptions, 3/15/05)

    Sen. Richard Burr
    "But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." (Sen. Burr Speaks Out on Judicial Nominations, 4/20/05)

    Sen. Sam Brownback
    "All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." (Sen. Brownback Issues Statement on Judicial Nominees, 5/24/05)

    Sen. John Thune
    "However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics." (Senators Find Good in Filibuster Agreement, AP, 5/24/05)

    Sen. George Allen
    "They want Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight up-or-down vote on nominees based on their qualifications, not the baseless negative rhetoric of the left...In summation, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and all of the President's nominees, deserve a fair up-or-down vote." (U.S. Senator George Allen Deliver Remarks on the Senate Floor on Judicial Nominations, CQ Transcriptions, 5/18/05)

    Sen. Chuck Hagel
    "I am disappointed that the agreement reached by 14 senators does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of the president's nominees...That is a basic principle that should have anchored any agreement." (Hagel Calls Senators' Pact Inadequate, Omaha World-Herald, 5/25/05)

    Sen. Pete Domenici
    "Since the day I came to the U.S. Senate in 1973, I have believed strongly that every nominee deserves an up or down vote. That is why over all these years, I have never once voted to filibuster any nominee, even the ones that I ended up opposing. I am truly saddened that the Senate has reached this point. We should resume our long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominees who reach the floor an up or down vote." (Sen. Domenici Laments Continued Judicial Filibusters, 5/19/05)

    Sen. Charles Grassley
    "The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." (Grassley: Give Judges a Fair Up or Down Vote, CQ, 5/23/05)

    Sen. Wayne Allard
    "I'd made my position clear. I wanted to have an up- or-down vote on the judges." (Freshman Salazar Stands with his Seniors, The Denver Post, 5/24/05)

    Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo
    "We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." (Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal, 5/25/05)

    Sen. Ted Stevens
    "I may not have always agreed with a judicial nominee pick, but I've never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination. There have been some petitions. And I've always agreed that we should allow an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations on the Senate floor. These nominees deserve our vote." (Press Conference on Judges, Federal News Service, 5/19/05)

    Sen. Jim DeMint
    "My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," (Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters, 4/20/05)

    Sen. Elizabeth Dole
    "I think that it's very important that we reinstate the tradition, the Senate tradition, of 220 years, throughout the entire history of the United States. We've had a system that worked, that, when a nominee on the floor has a clear majority of the senators in favor, that they're going to get that up-or-down vote." (Interview with Senator Elizabeth Dole, The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/21/05)

  • May 25th 2009 - Monday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    What is the name of the attorney that does the mortgage renegoitation. He wrote book on dealing with how to and what to look for in getting a mortgage.

    ALSO the old site used to allow searches on prior subjects . . . I can't find the search engine box.

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    For a moment I was confused, because the Blue dog/red fleas comment was from a while ago. Then I remembered that today is a "best of" show.

    Well, I've move on. Now I aske, "If the Democratic Party is a big tent, do the Blue Dogs stay in a pup tent?"

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    i was able to find bob altemeyers' books title enemys of the nation, the authoritarian spector at the chicago public libary

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago


    The call for the reversal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been growing lately, and Rachel Maddow has been raising the banner for this cause. It also has much support on the left, as most gay rights issues do.

    Rachel has recently interviewed two American “warriors” who are being forced out of the military because they are gay; U.S. Army First Lieutenant Daniel Choi and U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, both wish to be able to return to the field of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan to carry on the military policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. I may not agree with the reason they aren’t being allowed to serve there, but I’m not terribly distressed that they can’t.

    (I will say that the case of Daniel Choi is more difficult, because his fluency in Arabic might actually help save lives by facilitating communication between our troops and the people in those countries. Still, I don’t want American forces occupying those countries.)

    All our citizens should have equal rights to seek employment, both in the private and public sectors and we certainly have a long way to go before we reach that goal. However, I’m far more concerned that we change our foreign policy than I am about returning these people I call the Gay Reapers, to the field of battle so they can kill people in the name of American military and economic interests. How much Iraqi and/or Afghan blood do they have on their hands?

    But judging by the trends in our society (and others), gays will have the right to serve openly in the military fairly soon. This is an overall trend in our societies throughout the world. As we become more aware of the gays among us, and as younger generations grow into adulthood, what we refer to as homophobia will diminish.

    From a practical point of view, the military/political complex may eventually see the necessity of allowing open gays into the military. When the American government saw the need to allow blacks to serve in order to win the Civil War, they allowed them to, possibly saving the “union”. Truman did the same when he desegregated the military. Fighting almost broke out in the United States between segregated black and white units during WWII.

    The history of the desegregation of the American military didn’t happen as quickly as many think. Black units were first led by white officers. I had the opportunity to meet one of the first African Americans to reach the rank of Lieutenant in the U.S. military. Of course, he was only allowed to lead other black soldiers. He also was one of the first black firefighters in Los Angeles.

    My guess is that gays will be openly serving in the U.S. military well before U.S. foreign policy will be more than in the service of corporate interests.

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago
  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    conservatives without conscience i s a great book to understand dick cheney and the right.

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    A few short comments about the debate with Christopher Hitchens (he's not the best person to advocate his side -- he's just driven, he has said, because of 9/11.)

    There are several books discussing the idea that religious/spiritual impulses may have been selected for, as sedentary culture and the ability to pass on memes with some fidelity arose, through evolutionary processes operating on the combined meme and gene space. It's possible that the human response to mystery and a sense of awe itself preceded the development of responses to those feelings as a survival benefit of its own. I can't say, it's a new field of thought still being researched and explored. But it's intriguing.

    Regarding the question more broadly and Thom's comment about the very existence of supernatural forces or objects, that's just our ignorance. When we understand the details, we call it facts or knowledge. When we don't, but want to personify or make manifest the object of our ignorance, we then ascribe what we feel we observe but cannot explain as "supernatural" in some way. But it's nothing more than just saying, "we don't know." That's all. But it feels nice to "put it in a box" somehow and talk about it as though it were a thing.

    Sadly, we will always be ignorant about things in the world around us. We will never understand everything. So there will always be a need to put that ignorance in a nice, tidy box to talk about and think about and worry over. We have a love for and capacity for a sense of awe and mystery. I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone. It helps to know what it is, though -- just our ignorance personified.

    On a final matter, which Thom addressed. We each have our internal belief systems. We probably couldn't survive long without them. The problems come in when we assign to our internal beliefs an external 'Truth Value' and then, on the basis of that presumption, further decide that others must be forced to embrace or otherwise accept them and/or behave accordingly.

    Then we've all got a problem.

    Politics is about finding common values and elevating them. And where our differences remain, finding those compromises we can each live with -- without resorting to violent coercion. Ultimately, politics and the legal system are about peace and tranquility among peoples of very diverse attitudes and beliefs. If we are to seriously engage in a political life that has any chance at long term survival as people's attitudes evolve and science and technology changes, we need to be mature enough to realize that politics is NOT a place for religious dogma.

    Not because religious dogma is inherently wrong. Some of it is more than fine. But because it is unyielding to objective evidence. We need to be able to engage in a debate over issues and this means we need to be able to bring forth arguments based on something where the other side can actually "see" some element there. That doesn't mean they agree with the implications, but at least they can see the same evidence.

    When we assign external Truth Value to our internally held beliefs, sufficient sometimes even to jail or justify the organized murder (death penalty) of others, it tears apart the very fabric of successful politics. We need to have evidence to consider in politics and law. Not unshown, internal beliefs with no possibility of debate because they are held "True no matter what." That simply shuts down political dialog.

    And this leads us to why the separation of church and state in the US is so important.


  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Another gov't. website will contain data from all areas of the government. So far, a minimum of 60 agencies have contributed to it:

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    OK ... busted! Caught a typo in my post above that I missed on my proofread.

    In the last line of the first paragraph, the word "last" should be "least".


  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Beth Noveck, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, was on c-span’s “Washington Journal” this a.m. She was talking about recent (within the last 24 hours) additions to the White House website. was just made available to encourage people to offer suggestions to make the government more transparent and open. Noveck said that the administration is looking for ideas to improve specific areas of government that could benefit from new technologies, systems, etc. They also want feedback to make the site better.

    A weblog for scientists and technology people went up yesterday. Members of the administration want to brainstorm via comments on the weblog with citizens for a limit of ONE WEEK. Then, the next phase of the process will begin. After that, another phase will begin, and so on.

  • May 22 2009 - Friday   10 years 21 weeks ago

    Maybe I'm just a stick in the mud. I realize that this is the internet and all, but I assume that people who post stuff here would like to at least appear intelligent. Is it too much to ask, then, that we take a moment to read the stuff we've written, at last once, before hitting "POST"?

    I'm no English teacher, but I do at least attempt to check my spelling, grammar and sentence structure before posting anything. Even the best ideas can appear pretty stupid if presented poorly.

Come Cruise with Thom Hartmann in July 2020

Join me for an exciting Bermuda getaway aboard Oceania Cruises, the world’s leading culinary and destination-focused cruise line. Set sail on the reimagined Insignia for 7 nights beginning July 25th 2020. Take advantage of Oceania Cruises’ OLife Choice promotion, where you can choose shore excursions, a beverage package, or onboard credit – Oceania Cruises also includes Wifi! You'll also receive complimentary gratuities, a $50 onboard credit and two exclusive cocktail parties. Did I mention we are planning special onboard events with yours truly? Prices start at $1199.

Reserve your stateroom today by contacting Keene Luxury Travel, and mention the Thom Hartmann Group 800.856.1155

or go to

Can the Presidency Regain Its Integrity After Trump?

Thom plus logo Even those of us old enough to remember have probably forgotten that in the spring of 1979 the Attorney General of the United States appointed a special prosecutor to look into his own president's ownership of his peanut warehouse, to make sure that he wasn't, in any way, making money from his presidency.