Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Call it what it is, bribery.
Attach it as a title to Issa's name at every turn: Darrell Issa, Leader of Bribery
@bicyclejroad, here are my perceptual opinions. Toni was a conservative crazy operative. She was a plant. She ATTEMPTED TO FILIBUSTER THOM'S RADIO SHOW. iF YOU LISTENED CAREFULLY YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT SHE WAS DOING. I have in-laws through marriage who are fascist-Nazis. There is no way you can talk to the conservative crazies.
Issa is a Joe McCarthy wanna-be who saw Communists and American Traitors in every closet and wanted Big Government to eradicate them all! What is frieghtening is that Issa may very well succeed!
This has to be stopped before Issa becomes another out of control Grand Inquisitor of American Democracy!
Thom, I heard you address the issue of learning Arabic in schools. I tried to reply in Facebook, so if you read it, I am sorry if this is more of the same: The story going around is that ALL elementary and high schools are going to be forced to learn Arabic and Sharia (not sure if I spelled that right) law. It doesn't matter what I say in rebuttal, the people who believe this will not listen.
I am talking about family members who used to support Kucinich, and now they are loyal fans of Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin. They will not listen to reason.
I explained that when I was in school it was mandatory to learn Spanish, and it was mandatory to take at least one course in a third language, and that was French. Next, I had to hear how I was taught Spanish to indoctrinate me into the Socialist network of Mexicans over-running the country. I explained that I wanted to learn Russian and Japanese at the time, because at that time they were powerful nations like the US (at that time), and then I had to listen to an hour long diatribe about how we are no longer a super power.
These people can't keep their heads straight. If we are going to win against the rhetoric, it will have to be through some form of force, or action, that will demonstrate the point. Reason and capitulation will not work.
One more thing, I am not suggesting that the President and his family live in a shack and eat grilled cheese sandwiches, but when the White House Superbowl parties release a full menu of everything they had to eat and drink, while people are losing their houses and their jobs, it doesn't make my job as a progressive any easier.
The Neville Brothers have a great version of "With God on Our Side"
A story concerning a certain Frog and a Scorpion comes to mind.
IX. COMMENTS ON HARTMANN’S REMARKS ON HIS SHOW 8 FEB.’11 – STANDING ARMY V. MILITIA:
I listened and viewed Mr. Thom Hartmann’s remarks about his news story on the Montana militia. First off, I must agree with 100% of what Hartmann had to read from his notes and posted on the lighted boards in the Washington News studio. I agreed with perhaps 65% of his off the cuff remarks. I totally disagreed with his conclusions since they did not conform to the facts laid out in support. In fact the conclusions were counter to the facts in support. The most glaring inaccuracy seems to me to be an utter confusion between the terms standing army and militia. Succinctly, the standing army is the military, as it exists today. It is a force of full time hired manpower dedicated to offensive and defensive force directed by the comdr.-in-cheat. This military force is distinctly and different from the idea and whole concept of the militia as intended by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. The militia is the people or ordinary citizen in the cities and rural areas. They are merely a part-time armed force for the local peace and order for their community and state. They are not paid; they on the most part provide their own private arms and accoutrement. Off the top of my head it is defined in T10 U.S.C. § 311(a) and (b) and the second amendment to the Fed. Constitution, 1787. For the Ohio Republic, it is defined at Art. IX of that jurisdiction’s Constitution, 1851. § 1, All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment of the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. § 5, The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms. Further, Art. I, § 4, The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Therefore, fundamentally the 2 terms “standing army” and “militia” are opposed to each other and entirely different. You’re right that history and learned men studying history have found that their respective armies and hardly a case by its navy have overthrown many countries. Therefore the principle for avoiding a standing army unless the intention is for conquest, adventurism and empire building is to be maintained and viewed as a danger. On the other hand, a militia is composed of the town and rural citizen whose only purpose is to maintain the peace and order of his community and state and stands down as soon as an incident is quieted. The militia is not a rabble, disorganized and evil bent organization. Contained in the unalienable and absolute right is the black letter of the law, “well regulated militia”. This means a well disciplined and organized armed citizen force whose purpose if for peace and order and not the evil intent Hartmann designates. I firmly believe that the standing army has far outweighed the militia in evil deeds. I firmly believe that the militiamen must maintain their arms to home for a quick response to quell an incident. It works in the U.S. (There are 60 to 70 million private arms owners in the Amerikan Union) It works in Switzerland where contrary to your remarks housed their individual shoulder arm along with their webgear for quick deployment to their assigned battle station. Even their hump-vee or suitable squad vehicle is maintained at the domicile of the squad leader.
To show the difference, the foundational document does have a section addressing the use of the standing army separate and distinct from the militia. See Art. I, § 8, Cl. 12, to wit: To raise and support armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. Therefore, the framers had no intention of supporting a standing army for longer than a defensive action. Now distinct from the standing army see Cl. 15, To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions. Then further, Cl. 16, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States . . . then again the second amendment to the Fed. Constitution, which was posted to the electronic board in his studio.
Don’t you see that the U.S. has consistently and continuously violated the spirit and mandate of the Constitution by providing for a standing army, i.e. United States Army, when prosecuting aggressive warfare during a period that really is at peace? And further, appropriating funds in support of this standing army beyond the mandated 2 years max.? On the other hand and hypocritically, people are being prosecuted and imprisoned for the so-called, “material support” of terrorist organizations that is in the most part the list is kept secret.
I fully disagree with one of your suppositions. Agreeing wholly against maintaining a standing army in times of peace, I also believe so about the Air Force. Instead, a navy ought to be maintained, see Cl. 13, and the naval air wing should be expanded. This expansion ought to be for heavy lift in times of domestic and foreign emergencies to carry appropriate heavy equipment for disaster relief such as Katrina and Haiti.
It is my strong opinion that the hype and hysteria against the militia concept and this fundamental right is founded upon the plan to disarm the populace in order to make them as docile as the Jews in the Nazi era.
end of the speil.
VIII. A Greater Dynamic at Play
1/12 – anniv. of Haitian earthquake in ‘10.
[Fire off also copy to Esq. Bill Quigley of Ctr. For Constitutional Rights saying that the 1st and 2d amendments are in conflict. He is against semi-autos that were once banned before ‘04.] I question to which consti. he, Esq. Bill Quigley, swore an oath. Then he says that the U.S. has more prisoners than any other state. He spoke of the privileges in the U.S.; what happened to the rights Amerikans possess? He spoke of the fear in the U.S.; isn’t it the U.S. gov’t. responsible for this? I applaud him and his organization for prosecuting the campaign to hold those perpetrators of torture accountable, however, I’ve lost my respect for this individual for selective adherence to the law and breach of oath. I was a proponent for the ctr. And pray that this is not indicative of the ctr’s ideology (I mistakenly assumed the Ctr upheld the whole of the U.S. Const. as its namesake implies. And its officials – after it names itself “Center For Constitutional Rights”. Isn’t the right to keep and bear arms an Amerikan right? A Constitutional right?). [Copy to GritTV too & DemNow!]
There is in my humble opinion a greater dynamic influencing the situation and human condition of the masses. Banning of arms will not legislate away crime. Some of the greatest crimes are done with the stoke of the pen rather than conventional arms. The larger overarching effect or framework might be the inequities in the two tiered class system being perpetrated on the people. A factor may be a great and widening schism between the rich and poor and control of their government apparatus. The people’s governing apparatus has been co-opted by the ruling elite cabal. This ruling cabal is made up of the multi-national banks, corporations, industrial-military complex and behind-the-scenes ruling elite entities. It is also the eroding of the moral fiber, intrusiveness of the government apparatus and the erosion of individual rights. Hartmann eluded to this very dynamic on his show.
The solution might be for the people to know definitively who they respectively are. Then it may be that these people form coalition groups banded together under one cohesive force to strike at the soft underbelly of the beast. In other words all righteous people and groups of them to band together, internalize a common goal, formulate a coordinated plan and execute the plan towards the root cause of the common problem.
EFF. 11/4/10.
More to follow.
"From the fools gold mouth piece,
the hollow horn.
Plays wasted words,
proves to warn.
That he not busy being born,
is busy dying."
Bob Dylan, Desolation Row
Toni called in to the Hartmann Show today. A real person with a real problem. She's was scorned, talked down too, and pretty much told she was too dumb to understand what was going on in the progressive movement. The USA is full of Toni's. She wanted an answer to her problem. You progressives laughed at her. And that my lefty friends, is why the progressives are busy dying, while the Tea Party is busy being born.
VII. Anti-Rights Stance
1/11/11 – 9th Anniv. of Guantanamo JTF brig for detaining and torture.
Hartmann anti-gun: (anti-American and unconstitutional) Wants to go back to “assault gun band” & 10rd. mag. limit.
John Valleco spokesman of Gunowners Assoc. debated and bested Hartmann on his own program. Hartmann looked foolish in the face of calm and cool Valleco responding with quiet reason, law and logic.
The so-called “assault gun band” did nothing to make the U.S. safer.
Caller … said that Cuba has a civil militia armed with AK-47s (AW, assault weapon) and each militiaman has one in his home as a duty arm. Swiss militia with their M-550 true assault weapon and actually American system of defense force has stood in good stead for almost 400 years in the case of the Swiss. So did the Hagganah, pre-IDF.
Hartmann’s and Esq. Thomas’ foolish hysteria and illogical position that “guns are only for killing” is perhaps telling about his and her rational faculties. This hysteria may even taint the good logic about other facts and topics of worth in Hartmann’s entertainment programming.
In my own experience, I’ve shot my handguns on average of 200 rounds per month for some 44 yrs. I personally have never brandished, pointed and or shot any individual. During that time I lived in a large metropolis. I’ve fired my .44 revolver into the air of the Alaskan bush to ward off bear in our camp at night.
I would venture to say the average rank and file beat cop would disagree with Hartmann that “guns are only for killing”. I would further venture to say the average militiaman would disagree with Hartmann that “guns are only for killing”.
There are according to “government” sources between 60 and 70 million private arms owners in the Union of States. Let’s suppose only 10% of these were to take Hartmann’s suggestion to heart. Can Hartmann show me or us where there are 6 million maimed, wounded or killed individuals at the hands of these private owners per year. To carry further his false logic, suppose that of these 6 million private arms owners, none of them brandished a single-shot in perpetration of their crime. Consequently, these repeating arms would be capable of delivering perhaps 4 more rounds at other potential victims. Hartmann, Thomas and those of their ilk would be hard pressed to demonstrate in fact the additional attacked, maimed, and or murdered of some 24 million victims per year at the hands of the private arms owners. This adds up to 30 million such victims each and every year. At this rate the whole Union would be devoid of citizens in 10 to 12 years. Mind you this is only a mere fraction of that suggested by Hartmann, Thomas, Brady and those of that ilk. Thank Yahweh this is not reality, but only false preaching by hysterical men and on the wrong side of history.
Whether this is an agenda or not is difficult to say however, this false alarm keeps reoccurring each and every time there is a shock caused to society. Murder and mass killings existed far longer than early and modern arms.
To carry this false logic even further, suppose the common automobile was found to have killed an individual or even perhaps a few in the street in Washington, D.C. The sane choice would be to hold responsible the operator of that private conveyance. This is far wiser rather than bursting into hysteria and banning the use of the common automobile to the responsible and collective people. I too can claim to say cars are only for killing, does it make it so?
This preemptive and unreasonable action is not taken because perhaps there is, so far, no agenda to set the public at large afoot.
In the light of this, I have a proposition to offer Hartmann. If he can guarantee me 2 million bucks for each life lost of my loved ones and a million for each injured when law enforcement fails to protect me and mine at suit and being so awarded. If Hartmann could guarantee me this, I might consider relinquishing my arms. Further, if Hartmann could guarantee me, there is no conspiracy against the people. If he could do that I’d be more inclined to turn in my arms. Furthermore, if Hartmann could somehow guarantee me that the U.S. government apparatus or some state government apparatus would not turn tyrannical, more than it already is, I’d be further inclined to turn in my arms. Moreover, if Hartmann could change the statutes, federal and state, absolving the citizen from being a member of the militia, there would be even more inclination. And finally, if Hartmann could guarantee me there will be no more Hitlers and other boogiemen like the so-called Ben Laden. Then I’d be satisfied, reluctantly, to relinquish my arms. It comes down to how good is Hartmann’s word or guarantee?
more to follow.
VI. Authority for the People
“Sovereignty . . . in our system . . . remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). See also: Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 [Dall] U.S. 419 (1793).
more to follow.
V. The Term “Democracy” does not Appear Anywhere in the Constitution
1/5-7/11? – An astute caller to your news show on FSTV stated that the term democracy is not anywhere in the U.S. Fed. Const. & you acknowledged that. Then you went on to say correctly that the description and definition of the term is ensconced in the fundamental document. However, you didn’t mention to whom that democracy applies. I draw your attention that the proscribed process is designated to the body called the U.S. Congress and not to the people. You failed to say in the same document that a republican form of gov’t. is guaranteed to the states, Art. IV, sec. 4. You further failed to mention with respect to the U.S. Const. that the democracy only exists in Washington, D.C. and the rest of the U.S. territories. If you’ll acknowledge that the U.S. Fed. Const. is the supreme law of the land, then by definition the Union is not a democracy as you often wrongly profess. By definition if there is an overarching or framework of some superior code, law or law-and-order, then a pure democracy cannot exist.
You also falsely talk about “a nation” that exists under the Washington, D.C. regime. Washington, D.C. is not a nation, not a state, is not sovereign, but merely the seat of gov’t. for the “Union of Several States”; sometimes called the United States of America. Washington, D.C. is a creature[1] of the states and therefore, belong to the people through the states. The U.S. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction only over the Fed. Zone of Washington, D.C., its territories and its possessions and not over the Union of states. The respective states of the Union are individual countries or nations of themselves and are individual and independent republics. They are not under the rule of the U.S. federal government. The rule of law prevails in these independent nations and cannot by definition and as a matter of law be democracies. It may be true, democracy, for your chosen and recent home of D.C., but not so in the several states where the majority of the people live and breathe; and incidentally where the majority of the people live who view your program. You unwittingly mislead them, the majority. Your adopted jural society residing in D.C. live in a democracy alright, but they do not possess the right to vote or self-governerance. That absolute power belongs exclusively to the U.S. Congress in session and not to the territorial citizens residing in the fed. zone. The states each has 2 laws governing their respective jurisdictions or nations. They are the Fed. and state const. Please, do your own research and include in your reading, “The Red Amendment”, 2d ed. authored by L.B. Bork of Wisc.
You also mentioned, which I didn’t hear, that some writer or founder said that the republican form was wrong and only included in the foundational document as a ruse to get the people to adopt the Const. Please explain it me and your sources in the federalist or anti-federalist papers, if any.
more to follow.
[1] The original 13 colonies authorized their respective delegates to form the entity in D.C. to act for the states in certain and definite functions of government and accountable to the respective states.
IV. There are Qualifications for the Office of the Presidency
On the topic of 'birthers' from his show on 9/13/10 with a female caller: It is not radical to demand proper credentials for the U.S. president. Doesn’t a beat cop ask for your driver’s license at each and every traffic stop? What happens if the so-called ‘driver’ refuses? Isn’t the office of ‘driver’ considerably less in circumstance than the office of the presidency? Isn’t it in the interest of the people to insure an idiot’s finger isn’t in control of the trigger for nuclear conflagration? There is a lawful qualification for the subject office. He should be ready, able & capable to prove his qualifications and not circumvent by bringing legal bars from proving so. The assuming officer, president, should not be allowed to issue an executive order barring the production of the long form of the Hawaii birth certificate. This long form bears the authentification of the assisting physician and the facility. People or even an individual have an inalienable right to demand their servants adhere to the law as it is written, even if some one or a few individuals don’t care to exercise their right. The Union is not a democracy. Further, those choosing not to exercise their right have every right to chastise those who do wish pursuant to the First Amendment to the Fed. Constitution.
After all, what has he got to hide? Furthermore, on 13 Jan. ’11, it was announced that the commander-in-cheat’s justice department has subpoenaed two non-U.S. citizens’ records from Twitter in secret because they were involved with the whistleblower Wikileaks. Now, in the light of this, isn’t it more compelling for the commander-in-cheat to turn over his credentials as demanded? What are the compelling meritorious reasons for his refusal to produce the requisite documents?
More to follow.
III. What is this “Democracy”
Not only Hartmann is wrong headed in this, he is also wrong in his assessment of what fundamentally the Union is, the fundamental form of government. Only in Washington, D.C. does the democracy exist, it doesn’t exist in the Union of Several States. There, each sovereign nation state is a republic that is entirely different from a democracy. See Art. IV, § 4 of the Fed. Constitution. The majority of the people, and I add of the viewers, live in the Union & not Washington, D.C. Someone speaking from the vantage point of Washington, D.C. and spewing generally that the nation is a democracy is patently misleading.
During the so-called ‘American Revolution’, really secession, only about 3% of the populace bore arms against the then world’s greatest force. History is proof that the terrorist American colonists won the righteous fight and for independence.
The U.S. imperial forces did not win against Iraq’s insurgency despite the U.S. winning the so-called war, war of aggression. Further, the U.S. imperial forces will not win against the insurgency in Afghanistan. It will not win an insurgency in Pakistan, Iran and Yemen.
My question to you is what if, and Yahweh forbid, the PRC, chicom China, were to somehow overcome the U.S. imperial forces and occupy the Union & Washington, D.C.? Would you be lining up to vote for their slate of political candidates? Or would you be participating in the insurgency?
more to follow.
II. The People as the Militia
Thom Hartmann is on the wrong side of the law of the land as seen previously and of history. Were it that the Jews and the greater population of Nazi Germany individually and respectively armed, perhaps history may have been different. The record demonstrates that the Nazi regime instituted measures to register and regulate private arms within the jurisdiction back in the early thirties. Then having the registrations in place and on record, the regime knew exactly where the arms were. This enabled the regime to collect those arms in the mid and late 30’s & thereby effectively disarming the populace. Therefore, the disarmed populace was left to the mercy of the ruling regime. There is no stopping a renegade regime internally unless the populace is armed.
Don’t you think that some national security agents, fascists, will take their oaths seriously and defect from the ranks of the imperial fascist ruling class or oligarchy? 2d Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S.A., did, citing, inter alia, the Nuremberg Doctrine and public int’l law. MGen’l Antonio Taguba, U.S.A., stood up against the national security fascist regime. Many resigned their offices against the fascist regime, example, Ann Wright, formerly with the U.S. State Department. There are some principled individuals within the power clique, although not much.
Don’t you think that the 60 to 70 million private arms holders will be a resource or force to be reckoned with? Suppose ½ of them decide to revolt against the tyrannical rule of the fascist imperial ruling class? Don’t you think an army of 30 million privately armed people, militia, cannot be overcome by the imperial military war machine in spite of all their high tech war machinery? All the U.S. imperial forces and resources in Afghanistan can’t even take out the 300 or so al Quieda insurgents. What makes you believe that the U.S. imperial military forces that are scattered around the world will overcome a much larger and hopefully much more motivated and righteous enemy?
Don’t you believe that some of the U.S. imperial military forces will defect to the righteous side as they have done so already during the Viet Nam conflict and in these present so-called wars?
Don’t you believe that over the years of decades the U.S. imperial foreign policy has alienated substantial and formidable resources around the world? Would the PRC feel slighted? Don’t you believe that once the battle cry is called for against this U.S. imperial military ruling class and forces, that all dissatisfied and disgruntle will enter the religious and secular jihad against the forces of evil? Wouldn’t there be a general uprising or insurgency against the U.S. imperial ruling class?
More to follow.
RESPONSE TO THOM HARTMANN’S COMMENTS ON ARMS
I. The People as Sovereign
First off, there is much that Mr. Hartmann is right about and is expert about his strong points and topics. There is much that I agree with that he has to say. Having said this, Thom Hartmann is simply wrong headed on the right to keep and bear arms as professed on 6/24/10 and later. That is pursuant to the second amendment to the fed. Constitution, 1787. If Mr. Hartmann really believes in the ‘American’ system of government and its principles, he cannot be right in his denigration of the ‘American’ people.
First, primary and fundamentally, the people are individually sovereign in the ‘American’ system (outside the U.S. – Washington, D.C. and its territories). That means that each man and woman is king and queen over their subjects – the civil servants that work for them. That includes the generals, admirals and the president of the U.S. – the so-called commander-in-cheat - through their respective states. In other words and fundamentally, the aircraft carriers, the atomic and hydrogen bombs, the antiaircraft missiles, the F-22 and F-25, nuclear ballistic submarines, and what not all belong to each individual man and woman through their respective states. Remember each public servant, including the president, acts for the people and not in the interest of their respective agency or the so-called national security interest. Don’t you think that if the king wanted to physically possess and hold the bow & arrow as issued to each bowman of his realm in 15th century England, there would be no thought of depriving the king of his prerogative? So it is in the true, de jure ‘America’ – otherwise called the Union of Several States. The kings and queens own the arsenals, munitions, magazines, forts, shipyards, etc. held in trust by the so-called military imperial war machine. Ownership is meaningless unless the owner is and have the capability of possessing, holding and or using the object of ownership.
more to follow.
@radlof: I didn't write the code for the logger, so I'll have to put up with the foreign numerals. See, THEY are EVERYWHERE! EVEN IN THE MACHINE!
@dbliss1, Amen!
Maxrot, I figured Republican Mr Forbes might uphold his oath to defend the constitution and honor our Bill of Rights, and reconsider voting for the extension of the "Patriot" act if I could get him to acknowledge that Obama (a Democrat) wanted to extend the act.
I've got a debate tactic for you, Thom.
When one of your right-wing guests claims that the government can't do whatever, because the only things Congress can do are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, point out that nothing in that section can be construed as providing a power to establish a flag of the United States (unless they will admit that the "necessary and proper" clause gives broad powers). You might want to ask them about flag burning first, just to line up the pins before you knock them down.
i also can see a common ground with the ron paul teaparty fraction in reducing the military budget. Bruce Fein and Dounglas Mcgregor will be talking at CPAC about reducing the military budget
@DRichards, I just don't see the Republican'ts voting for a Kenyan, Muslim, Business Hating, etc... candidate like Obama.
N
RE: The Patriot Act
I called my Virginia representative, republican Randy Forbes, and asked him why he was siding with the Obama administration and voting for the extension of the "Patriot" act ;)
Congrats on being #8!!!!!
Maxrot, I remember (I think it was last week) when Thom got a bit upset when a caller said that Obama could run as a republican just as easily as a democrat.