CATO Institute: 'A Taxing Distinction For ObamaCare'

Source:CATO Institute- fellow Roger Pilon.

"ObamaCare was a mistake from the start, a massive effort by the federal government to take over and control one‐​sixth of the economy — indeed, the part that concerns the most complex and intimate details of life, our health. It’s the most ambitious example to date of the political hubris progressives have displayed for over a century now, the belief that government can solve all of our problems.

Today, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to put a brake on that hubris. Four justices, led by Justice Kennedy, would have done so. But Chief Justice Roberts joined the four justices who are Exhibit A of the modern hubris, writing for the Court to uphold almost all of this monstrous intrusion on our liberty and on the very theory of the Constitution. And he did so on the flimsiest of rationales for deciding a constitutional question — precedent. If precedent carried the weight Roberts gave it today, we’d still be riding in segregated trains and sending our children to segregated schools." 

From the CATO Institute 

"In upholding Obamacare as a tax, the Supreme Court, led by the politically astute Chief Justice Roberts, took the safest route around a thorny issue. Both sides, arguably, got something they want. The chief justice strongly endorsed the argument that Congress is not allowed to compel people into commerce in order to regulate them under the Commerce Clause. President Obama and his supporters get to claim victory too. The end result, however, is the same. It makes no difference whether it is under the taxing power or the commerce power, Congress can now compel non‐​purchasers to become purchasers." 

From the CATO Institute 

"The Cato Institute's Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Michael F. Cannon, Michael D. Tanner and Trevor Burrus evaluate today's ruling on ObamaCare at the Supreme Court." 

From The CATO Institute 

If you want to argue that U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts bailed Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama out over the Affordable Care Act and labeling the individual mandate a tax, I won't waste your time arguing with you on that. But only because you are right. 

Congress is not known for gifted writers and writing. We're not talking about the Hollywood writers guild, but instead a group 535, mostly career politicians in the House and Senate who are in the business to get and stay elected and not be forced to work in the private sector and actually be productive and have to make a living on their own. If they said the individual mandate was a tax back in 2010 when the law was finally passed, Congressional Republicans of course would've ran agains't Democrats as tax and spenders who simply want to take more money out of hard-working Americans and give it to government. 

So what Democrats did back in 2010 was to pass individual mandate, which was tax/penalty in order to keep the Affordable Care Act in place and to have as many Americans in the health insurance system as possible, but also to partially fund the Affordable Care Act. Which is what politicians (Democratic and Republican) do to avoid political controversy which is to call their tough politicians things that they're not to cover themselves.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Peter Suderman: 'Is There a Silver Lining to the Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision?'

Source:Reason Magazine- 9 of the most powerful people in the United States.

"In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act by ruling that the individual mandate is legal under Congress' power of taxation, while giving states more flexibility in deciding whether to participate in the law's Medicaid expansion.

What does today's decision mean for the implementation of the law and the political effort to repeal it?

Nick Gillespie sat down with Reason Magazine Senior Editor Peter Suderman to discuss today's ruling and its implications for health care policy." 

From Reason Magazine

For political reasons, Democrats, especially Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama didn't call the individual health insurance mandate a tax, because they didn't want to get accused by Congressional Republicans and their candidates during the 2010 Congressional mid-terms of raising taxes on middle class Americans. So they were lying. And I'm saying this as a Democrat who supports the Affordable Care Act. 

Libertarians and 10th Amendment supporters in general should like the Supreme Court's ruling on the Medicaid expansion, because it says that the states have a choice whether to expand their Medicaid coverage or not. But Uncle Sammy can't force them to do that. 

I support the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act for two reasons: 

It's constitutional, which should be the most important. Whether you like what government does or no, everything that they does should have to be constitutional which guarantees limited government in America, even at the Federal level. 

And I like the law because it expands affordable health insurance to Americans who simply can't afford health insurance on their own, even if their employer offers insurance to them. As well as the ACA regulates the private insurance industry in America, while leaving it in place. 

So I don''t have any issues with SCOTU's ruling on the ACA. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Joseph Campbell: 'Walter Cronkite Wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America'

Source:Reason Magazine- Joseph Campbell talking to Reason Magazine about CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite.

"It's safe to say that Walter Cronkite was not the most trusted man in America, and it's safe to say he was not even the most trusted man among newsmen," says American University Professor Joseph Campbell, author of "Getting it Wrong".

Campbell says the 1972 survey that gave Cronkite the title of "Most Trusted Man" compared Cronkite with prominent politicians of the time, not newscasters, and so he "inevitably came out on top." He says CBS then used the survey results to promote the network.

"It was a way to tout Walter Cronkite as a source to go to for election coverage among the three networks," says Campbell.

Campbell sat down with ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie to discuss Cronkite and other myths propelled by the media." 

From Reason Magazine

Whether Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America or not, who knows. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted news anchor in America. Which was more important and easier to judge. He had this saying at the end of the CBS Evening News: “And that’s he way it is." And people believed that, we don’t have that today where a lot of our media is determined by which side of the aisle controls that organization.

The three national network newscasts, on NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as PBS, which people tend to forget or not even be aware of, still report the news based on what they report: “This is what we found and these are the facts in the story, as best we can determine." And I believe they still carry out the Cronkite legacy. (As I would call it that way) Where most of the rest of the news operations, except for C-SPAN and CNN as well, cover the news from a slant from either the right or left.

Opinion news mix in let's call them targeted facts, they’ll give you half the story if that and the rest of it will be commentary. And most of the people they interview share their view of the news and what that means and they’ll interview them to back up their perspective. And when they interview someone from the other side, they do it to contradict that person. With Walter Cronkite and with the PBS NewsHour, you get: “These are the facts” their reporters are reporters whose job it is to find out what’s going on in the country and around the World.

The network news divisions will interview analysts, a lot of times people without political slants who are there to explain what the facts mean. Which is much different from Fox News that’s in the business to give right-wingers a voice in the country and be the spokespeople for the Republican Party. Except for Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, where you get real reporting and real interviews.

And with MSNBC, especially in the prime time, but you can go back to 3PM with Martin Bashir, what you get from them is voices of the so-called progressive movement. They go after Republicans, as well as Democrats when they believe they aren’t what they call progressive enough.

One of the problems with today’s news and why someone like Walter Cronkite wouldn’t be nearly as relevant, if even successful, is that today news is not only mixed in with commentary, but with also entertainment.

People much rather know what Kim Kardashian wore at the last event she went to. Or about Paris Hilton’s latest run in with the law, and not how well the economy grew in the third quarter or April’s jobs numbers. So hard news is a lot harder to sell today with news organizations under the pressure to report everything, not just what’s important. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- James Ridgeway: 'Is Solitary Confinement a Form of Torture?'

Source:Reason Magazine- with a piece about solitary confinement in America.

"Obama says we don't torture, but a lot of this is straight-up torture," says journalism legend James Ridgeway. "We call Guantanamo and Afghanistan torture and we never look at our own stuff."

Ridgeway is talking about the growing use - and abuse - of solitary confinement in American prisons. He estimates there are 80,000 prisoners currently in solitary, many whom are mentally ill and suicidal. One prisoner Ridgeway is following has been in solitary for 40 years and he notes that some lawmakers are proposing life sentences in solitary as a "humane" alternative to the death penalty. Ridgeway and associates report their findings at SolitaryWatch.com.

Ridgeway is currently a Washington, D.C. correspondent for Mother Jones. He was a longtime correspondent for the Village Voice, and he's best known for uncovering that General Motors hired private detectives to try and defame consumer advocate Ralph Nader back in 1966.

ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie sat down with Ridgeway to talk about the growing use of solitary and what we can do about it." 

From Reason Magazine

If you are interested in crime and punishment and even reality TV (not celebrity contests, which is essentially what reality TV has become) about what goes on in life and how people live their lives, then I suggest you checkout MSNCB Lockup, which airs on weekends. They goes inside of some of America's toughest prisons. I wish they would get into private prisons but perhaps in the future, as well as Federal prisons. 

MSNCB Lockup, as well as the Criminal Investigation Network, American Justice on BIO, Lockdown on Nat Geo, Discovery ID has a show as well, they go into these prisons and show people who aren't in prison, what life is like behind bars, for thousands of our prison inmates. And they pay special attention to life in solitary confinement, where we house our most challenging prison inmates. 

These documentary shows on cable covers a  lot cases of prison inmates with mental problems. Who perhaps should be in mental institutions instead and people who haven't given up their criminal careers, just because they are in prison and don't feel they should have to obey rules. Inside or outside of prison and end up getting into fights, attacking other inmates, running criminal enterprises while in prison etc.

When it comes to my writing, especially my blogging where I manage my own site, if I'm anything it's a realist as a writer. I'm not some lefty-hippie who thinks it's never OK for government to be tough on hardcore criminals who intentionally hurt innocent people. And I''m not some so-called Libertarian, whose really just some right-wing Anarchist who thinks locking people away in prisons is some type of legalize kidnapping. Of course we have to have prisons in a free society like America where it's fairly easy to break the rules of society, but a helluva lot harder to get away with breaking the rules of society.

We need prisons, we tough prisons, we need maximin security prisons for our hardcore career criminals who are always willing to use violence to accomplish their objectives. We even need solitary confinement for some our violent offenders who've continued their criminal careers while in prison. But even solitary has to be a tool for rehabilitation and an opportunity for inmates to improve themselves and at least help them become productive, responsible, inmates. Even if they never actually get out of prison, they should at least have the opportunity to return to the general population in prison.

ESPN: 'The Fallen Champ- The Untold Story of Mike Tyson'

Source:ESPN- ESPN Classic showing this documentary.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"The Untold Story of Mike Tyson: "The Fallen Champ"......Great Documentary. Mike Tyson The Fallen Champ the untold story documentary, boxing fight knockout documentary compilation highlight. Fedor David Haye, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Juan Manuel Marquez, HBO 24 episode, Vladimir Klitschko Klitchko, Vitali Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Amir Khan, Carl Froch. Video tribute Joe Louis Frazier, Julio Cesar Chavez, Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Johnson."   

From Ibhof 

"When FALLEN CHAMP first appeared in 1993, director Barbara Kopple won both the Emmy and DGA award, but the film has rarely been screened since then. Now with the upcoming release of James Toback’s film TYSON, the time is right to look back on Kopple’s achievement at covering the subject from multiple perspectives.

Here’s what Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly had to say about the film at the time of its release...  

Source:Stranger Than Fiction- former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Mike Tyson.

From Stranger Than Fiction 

When I think of sports tragedies, I think of baseball players like Darryl Strawberry, Jose Cansesco, Pete Rose, Dwight Gooden, Denny McClain, etc. And In Strawberry and Cansesco's case, both five-tool players who had all the ability to be First Ballot Hall of Famers, but who weren't very disciplined off the field. And both had drug problems as well as injury problems, which had something to do with their lack of discipline as men. In Pete Rose's case, had an incredible great career, because of what he accomplished on the field by that alone, is a First Ballot Hall of Famer.

In Denny McClain's case, the former Detroit Tigers pitcher, who is a former Cy Young Award Winner, in 1968 who won thirty games in a season, who was on course to being a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again had drug and gambling issues and his career was cut short. Because of trouble he got into outside of baseball. 

Dwight Gooden's case, probably the best National League pitcher of the 1980s. A former Cy Young Award winner as well. Again on course to becoming a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again addicted to cocaine that kept him out of baseball for a period.

When I think of boxers who had tragic endings to their careers, who never lived up to their potential, I think of one boxer: Iron Mike Tyson, who dominated the heavyweight division in the late 1980s and that says a lot there. 

Iron Mike wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1986 and was dominant that year, as well as 87, 88 and 89, but loses his World Championship by 1990, to a journeyman, but talented boxer in James Buster Douglas, but never showed the discipline to be a great boxer. Who wins the World Championship by beating Mike Tyson in February, 1990, but loses his championship by November, 1990 to Evander Holyfield. And his career was basically over by then. Mike Tyson, by far the most dominant heavyweight of this 3-4 year period, but loses his championship to an unknown undisciplined boxer in 1990. Who loses the championship just nine months later.

And of course Mike Tyson makes an attempt at a comeback in 1991, with a couple of solid fights against Razor Rudduck. Wins both of them, setting up a potential fight with Evander Holyfield, by 1992. But was no longer the dominant boxer that he was a couple years ago, even though he's only in his mid 20s at this point. But of course that fight never happens because of Iron Mike's rape case in 1992. Where at the very least, Mike is guilty of poor judgement and shouldn't of put himself in that position to begin with. Which makes Mike Tyson's career, what could've been, which is how he'll go down, instead of what a great career he had. 

Richard Mourdock: 'Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision'

Source:Daily Mail- U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) who gives new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

“Politicians are often criticised for using canned responses and working in soundbites.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.” 

From the Daily Mail 

“Richard Mourdock Accidentally Releases Responses to ACA Supreme Court Decision”

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) giving new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

From Talking Points Memo 

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate, just because of the numbers. 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators (as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana) Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. (Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you)

And Richard Mourdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6, because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent.

Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far-Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where it’s common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11, or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim, illegal immigrant, from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and centrist, and of sound mind.

Just to cover this video: let’s call him Dick Murdock, because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Mourdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s Ozzie and Harriet Theocratic Republican Party that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate, but someone who apparently believes he sees visions and can see the future before it happens.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us and give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say: “Look, we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country.” They could also say: “You should vote for this bill because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- George W. Romney: 'A Republic No More'

Source:Liberty Pen- Governor George Romney, on The Open Mind with Richard Hefner.

"America has transmogrified from republic to special interest democracy."

From Liberty Pen

The more I hear George Romney, the more I know that he wouldn't fit into today's Republican Party. Because he would be seen as a Moderate-Liberal. And in today's neoconservative and Tea Party GOP, Conservatives look like Moderate-Liberals, because George Romney wasn't interesting in telling Americans how to live their lives. "This is the moral way to live and so-forth", which is what you hear from a lot of Republicans today.

George Romney was interested in economic and fiscal policy and probably foreign policy as well. He did run for President in 1968, but not by telling Americans how to live their lives. His son Mitt is the same way, the difference being that Mitt feels the need to convince so-called Christian-Conservatives that he's one of them. And if you watch this video of George and then watch his son Mitt, except for George being much older, it's like listening to the same person talk. They look and sound so much alike and sound very similar on policy as well. The difference being that with George, what you see is what you get. He's not interested in trying to convince people he's something he's not.

George Romney was right in this sense, the United Sates is not a democracy in the sense, that if a majority of Americans even if they vote for something on ballot, doesn't automatically mean we get it. Which is why legislation that Congress passes gets thrown out and why ballot measures get thrown out, if they are ruled as unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution is almost impossible to amend and even if you are successful in doing it, it could take ten years to accomplish that.

If we were a majoritarian democracy, we might not even have a Constitution and even if we did, it could probably be amended through majority rule. And things like free speech could either be amended or thrown out. As well as the Equal Protection Clause, the right to bare arms, property rights, just go down the line, could be either amended or eliminated by majority vote.

So Americans can't force other Americans to live their lives the way they want them to or deny them of things, because they feel like it. Or don't like them or don't like how they live their lives. Which is why these same-sex marriage bans have been thrown out by courts. We are a constitutional republic in the form of a liberal democracy. That we all have the right to live our own lives and live independently. As long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing.

We elect our leaders generally by majority vote (except the President) but we have guaranteed constitutional and individual rights. That are almost impossible for us to lose, short of hurting innocent people and then going to jail for our crimes. But even American prison inmates have basic constitutional and individual rights that they can't lose by a simple majority vote. 

Reason Magazine: Tracy Oppenheimer- Star Parker: 'Get Government out of Welfare Now!'

Source:Reason Magazine- Tracy Oppenheimer interviewing Star Parker from CURE.

"I know firsthand about welfare and welfare dependency because of my own life, living seven years in and out," says Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE).

Parker, also a syndicated columnist, explains what she thinks are the actual steps out of poverty and why our government should have no role in welfare in America.

Started as part of the Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s, the War on Poverty has been anything but effective, according to Parker. "This whole notion that we should even have a 'war on poverty' dismisses the fact that individuals have a role in their own lives," she says.

Parker sat down with Reason.tv's Tracy Oppenheimer to talk about her own experiences with the welfare system, and how she wants to reform it, even beyond the historic changes to welfare in the 1990s. "

From Reason Magazine

I do find it ironic that someone like Star Parker or anyone else would bash a system that they grew up on. Without Welfare Insurance, where were her family be, at least they had that and ended up not starving or homeless or growing up in foster homes that sort of thing. But Welfare Insurance is the very least that we can do as a country to help people who currently can't fend for themselves. 

Now, having said that about Welfare, I agree with Star Parker that we need to reform our Welfare system. I think we would just do it very differently. 

Instead of getting government out of Welfare, I would gets the FEDS out of Welfare and keep them out of Welfare. Uncle Sam can help with funding and research to see what's working and not working with Welfare in every state and locality. But Welfare really is a state and local issue because those are the folks who are closest to their communities and people and can see what their communities need the best. 

If we really want to get people out of poverty there are four things that we need to do: 

Temporary financial assistance that includes money, but also child care, health care, housing food assistance, for low-skilled adults who are currently not working. 

Education for everyone whose on Welfare whether they're working or not, so they can get themselves the skills that need to get themselves a good job. 

Then we need to make work pay. I'm for requiring everyone on Welfare to take the first available jobs that they're qualified for and are offered to them, even if they don't even have a high school diploma or GED yet. 

Jobs for people who are on Welfare are just going to be entry level jobs and probably entry level jobs like at a grocery store or convenient store, fast food restaurant, especially if they don't even have a high school diploma yet. So we need to make work pay and let them have the income that they get from work, while at the same time let them keep their cash assistance, as well as other public assistance, including child care, up to the point where they're not earning enough money on their own, that they no longer need any public assistance programs. 

And for the people who aren't working yet, they just get their public assistance, including education and child care, until they start working. This way people on Welfare well that they can get more money working even at entry-level, minimum wage jobs, then if they weren't working at all staying home with their kids all day. 

We need these new reforms to go along with the reforms from the mid 1990s like education, work requirements, and time limits, to actually move people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. Which is what we should've been doing with the so-called War On Poverty from the very start.

Talking Points Memo: 'Republicans Fire Away At Obama Over Immigration Policy Change'

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Representative Mo Brooks (Republican, Alabama) blowing another socket over something that President Obama did.

"Republicans Fire Away At Obama Over Immigration Policy Change" 

From Talking Points Memo 

At risk of playing what about: where was all of this Congressional Republican hissy-fitting over immigration, when then President George W. Bush did the exact same, damn thing that President Barack Obama has one, but back in 2006? 

Seriously, if anyone can come up with any Republican in Congress (House or Senate) who had a problem with President Bush's executive order over immigration that allowed Latin-Americans immigrants who were in America illegally, but have obeyed the law ever since and who have kids who are in America illegally in America only because their parents brought them here illegally, to stay in the country legally, so along they obey ever law going forward and pay their taxes, please share that with me and this blog. 

Not even freakin Representative Steve King (Republican, Iowa) whose probably the most anti-immigrant and Latino member of Congress right now, who was in the House back in 2006, had a problem with President Bush's executive order. 

All of this Republican hissy-fitting and temper-tampering is about, is that a Democratic President has done the same thing and they believe they have to have their anti-Latino, anti-Obama, anti-Modern America base with them on November, in order to get reelected in an election where we'll probably have high turnout, including from Latino-Americans who'll probably vote Democratic overwhelmingly this year.

Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: 'Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace.

"Chris Wallace Calls Interruption By Daily Caller Reporter 'Outrageous"

Source:Talking Points Memo

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

Talking Points Memo: Kyle Leighton- 'Will President Obama Be A Down-Ballot Drag?'

Source:Talking Points Memo- poll tracker Kyle Leighton.

"Will President Obama Be A Down-Ballot Drag?" 

From Talking Points Memo 

Well, if you want a very political, inside the beltway answer to Kyle Leighton's question, I'll give it to you anyway. It depends. Oh, you want more, well I'll give it to you anyway. 

In states where Senate Democrats are up, but where Mitt Romney will probably win that state like Indiana, Missouri, Montana, President Obama won't be much of a help, at least publicly and campaigning for Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jon Tester in Montana. He might be able to help them raise money and help Democrats get out the vote, but he doesn't actually need to be in those states to help those Democrats with that. 

So if you are just looking at this politically from a Democratic perspective, if the President is popular in your state and in you are in a tough election battle, you use him as much as you can. But if he's not popular in your state, you might be on your own or having to rely on a weak Republican, statewide candidate, or a combination of the two to get reelected or elected to the U.S. Senate this year.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch- 'Ask a Libertarian Lightning Round: Recalls, Libertarian Paternalism, & Tea Party v. Libertarians'

Source:Reason Magazine- Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie.

"Welcome to Ask a Libertarian 2012 with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt

Welch. They are the authors of the book The Declaration of Independents:

How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, coming out in

paperback later this month. Pre-order:Amazon 

On June 12, 2012 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to

answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook,

and Reason.com.

In this episode, they answer whether recalling fixes political corruption, whether 'nudging' will create more libertarians, and whether the Tea Party as made libertarianism obsolete. 

Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, and Tracy Oppenheimer

with help from Katie Hooks." 

From Reason Magazine

I'll just go through the questions here one at a time and tell you what I think about them and what my positions are. 

As far as nudge paternalism that I guess Cass Sunstein coined: I'm in favor of government doing research on activities in society that comes with real risks and telling people about the negatives and positives of every activity in society. I think it's a helluva lot better than trying to outlaw or sanction people for doing doing something that might only hurt themselves. But then that's as far as I would go. 

As far as recalls: elections have consequences. You would think that would've been something that the great political satirist George Carlin coined himself, but he didn't. I guess I could live with recalls if they're done democratically and a politician doesn't face a recall simply because there was a low turnout or the recall met a low threshold. But let's say l/2 plus one of registered voters turned out and voted to recall a politician. And then you have a yes or no question only on whether the politician should get recalled or not, if the recall gets on the ballot. 

As far as the Tea Party: right now they look like a very diverse political movement on the right, from Center-Right Constitutional Conservatives or even Conservative Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress. But then the populist-Christian-Right movement from the 1990s and 2000s that gave the Republican Party complete control of Congress for the first time in 40 years in 1995, are also part of the Tea Party movement. So yes, if you believe in constitutionalism and limited government, you shouldn't put all of your eggs in the Tea Party basket, because the Libertarian Party is still needed for that very reason.

Talking Points Memo: Mitt Romney- ''America Is On The Cusp Of Having A Government Run Economy'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) apparently unaware of who he's actually running for President against.

"Romney: 'America Is On The Cusp Of Having A Government Run Economy" 

From Talking Points Memo

I generally only blog about political satire on the weekends and save the weekdays to blog about the top 4-5 news stories, at least according to me each day. But this is Thursday and the last two days, I've seen two people say just strange crazy things about the President, that I thought were worth blogging about. 

The three crazy political stories this week: One by a Democrat and two by a Republican, one a former President, who still wants to be President and when he forgets to take his medication, still believes he's President, in Bill Clinton. And the other a wannabe President who's spent half of a decade running for President, a job he'll never have and you heard that first, if you are listening. 

Bill Clinton going off message about the tax cuts, suggesting the President should consider raising them before the presidential election. Tax hikes in an election year, when you are already in a close election . Good thing Barack Obama didn't listen to Bill Clinton in 2008, I mean they would be the first chapter in a book on how not to run for President, right after declaring you were born in Japan or some other foreign country to foreign parents. And also by the way, you are not even an American citizen, you just play one on TV.

And of course my favorite punching bag of 2012, ever since Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum ended their presidential campaigns, granted Mitt Romney is my favorite punching bag by default, but he still counts: Mitt announcing on Wednesday that President Obama slowed down the economic recovery on purpose. He also said in the Republican presidential debates, that President Obama's goal is to ruin the American economy, so we can have more people dependent on public assistance. 

Apparently Governor Romney is unaware that the health of the American economy, will determine whether President Obama is reelected or not and that its in President Obama's best interest to have the strongest economy possible. And today Mitt suggested that President Obama wants the Federal Government to control 50% of the economy. I mean come on, man,  outer space might be exciting and all of that (especially for all you Star Trek fanatic fans) but, lets get real and ty to keep sci-fi out of politics. How about a break from the science fiction and come back to Earth once in awhile, just for a visit if nothing else. 

This type of rhetoric plays well with the Far-Right, people who believe that Barack Obama is a Kenyan citizen, an African-Muslin-Atheist-Socialist (notice, that at least two of those words don't go together) but people who believe this have their own planet, far, far and away, that perhaps only Superman can reach and they come to Earth to, for one probably just to get away from each other and two to see what humans are like. And they represent a fringe so small group, that couldn't fill up a phone booth, when you make statements like this, you are held accountable for them. 

Out of sight, out of mind, political propaganda (to be too kind)  get played over and over and you are asked constantly if you stand by them, perhaps in ten different ways. This is what happened to Rick Santorum, when he was under the impression or influence (depending on how you look at) that he was only speaking to Far-Right crowds and that only they would only report what he said.

When Mitt Romney gives speeches like this, he should only give them on Romney World or wherever the hell he's from, Mexico or wherever. And hope that he's not being watched by Americans with satellite TV, reporting back to Planet Earth, exactly what he said. Because all presidential candidates are held accountable for what they say, good or bad. To see if that person actually believes what they said.

HBO Docs: The Weight of The Nation (2012)

Source:HBO Docs- The Wight of The Nation.

"To win, we have to lose. The four-part HBO Documentary Films series, The Weight of The Nation explores the obesity epidemic in America." 

From HBO Docs

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban (which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids) it fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people what you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. 

But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens (I’m speaking basic English here) it goes away, because you eliminated it. So-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, in actuality) have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what, those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. 

If someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

People who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. 

We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford health care, won’t get it, at least at the emergency room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for. As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. 

But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make, to pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel & Geert Wilders- 'Hate Speech Or Free Speech?'

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel interviewing Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders.

"Accusations of hate speech can be an effective politically correct pretense to either stifle free speech or to defend the undependable. Geert Wilders

Keep up with liberty issues and news at:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

John Stossel had the perfect line right off the bat: "The Right and Left say they support free speech up to the point when it actually counts, when it's speech that they disagree with or when it offends them." Which is really what this debate is about, do we as Americans have the right to express ourselves and make our own views known, or not? I think the answer is obvious, but when you listen to fascists on the Far-Right and so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left, they'll give you much different viewpoints and say that some speech is so dangerous that simply can't allow for it in a civilized society.

At least in America, I'm not going to speak for the rest of the world, we have a First Amendment. Which gives us the constitutional right to speak our minds, without being punished by government, as long as we are not libeling, or threatening to hurt, or kill people. In other words I can call Joe or Marry, (excuse the word assholes) but I can't threaten to kill or beat up Joe or Mary, or any of their friends or relatives, coworkers and vice-versa. And I can't call them a murderer in public, or something like that, without any evidence to back it up. 

If someone has been arrested for murder, I could then call them a murderer, the person or people responsible for murdering Bob, or Sally or whoever. The Supreme Court has been very consistent here, our First Amendment just doesn't protect political speech or news organizations, or Freedom of Religion, but the right for Americans to express themselves on anything, short of committing fraud, wildly libeling people, or calling for violence. 

Talking Points Memo: 'The War on Everything'

Source:Talking Points Memo- CNN doing a report on torture. Hopefully they didn't title it: "The War On Torture"

Source:Real Life Journal 

"The War On Everything" 

From Talking Points Memo 

There are several words that are overused to the point, that I would almost like to see them disappear. Like a hot song, that sounds great for a the first couple of weeks, but then you get tired of hearing it and a song like that generally comes from a one-hit wonder. Someone like the group Dream, that was big ten years ago or so. With their song Love Me or Love Me Not, I think was the title. But if I had to put a list of lets say the top 5-10 words that are overused in America, going from 1-5, it would now be war, which just recently replaced awesome to me as the most overused word in America. 

When I think of war, I think of combat, where people can get hurt or even die. Where lives can even be saved. The Iraqi War comes to mind, the Civil War in Syria would be a another one, the Vietnam War. But if you are not familiar with military combat, but somehow familiar with American politics, which would be really odd, you would have to be the ultimate political junky to meet that criteria, where all you are interested in is politics, you only follow campaigns and speeches and don't see anything else in the world, you would think war is purely a political term. The war on this and that and so-forth. The War on Women, the War on Capitalism, the War on Freedom, the War on Religious Liberty, etc. First of all: most of these things are fabricated. 

The War on Women, thats not a war. Now you can make the case that House Republicans are making an effort to limit females access to certain health care. But thats not a war, its a campaign at best and they sound funny and perhaps clever and easy to remember, make good sound bites, etc. But these aren't wars, they are campaigns at best. I've been guilty of this myself using the word of war with my blogging. I wrote one blog post that I called the Christian-Right's War on Freedom, but I was half-joking. Perhaps I should've said the Christian-Conservative  Campaign Against Freedom. Which would be accurate and would also be easy to remember. 

But a lot of times when people say The War on This or That, they generally aren't talking about a War on This or That. They are generally talking about something specific. Just to round out my list of words that are overused in America top 5-10 that I mentioned earlier, that hopefully may end up on the Late Show Top 10 List, perhaps as soon as beach houses go for sale in North Dakota or just after that) War would be at the top of the list for reasons I've already explained. 

Followed by awesome: If everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. It seems like every time someone sees something they like now it's, awesome!!! When I think of the word awesome, I think of something or someone that's really amazing, good or bad, that there is no other way to explain it. Most of things in the world don't meet that criteria. A team isn't awesome just because they won the championship, they might not be awesome at all. A good meal or movie, band, song, whatever, aren't always awesome, they may just be good at that particular time.

Two other words that thank goodness have died down over that last few years, perhaps with Paris Hilton being in the news less (or in jail) are hot and fabulous. For the same reasons as awesome and I said top 5-10 and I've only done a top 4, or how about Fab 4, number five and then I got to wrap up. And I'm sorry if I offend any valley people, girl or guy here, but you guys and gals are big targets of mine. But like and totally, especially when they are put together. "Like totally!" That is so annoying to me! 

And oh my God, especially when they are put together, thats nine and WTF. (Hopefully you know what thats short for) All for the same reasons as awesome. And there you have it my top now list of words that are overused and I'm tired of hearing. But look I understand lazy when it comes to language in America is in and thinking for one's self especially when it comes to expressing themselves and risking standing out, is not really in especially if you come as different. But being a person an individual is exactly that. And with that comes the freedom for people to be themselves, even if they are different from the pack or group. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviews Jonah Goldberg: ‘The Tyranny of Cliches and Political Discourse’

Source:Reason Magazine- National Review columnist and author Jonah Goldberg.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Liberals are sure they’re in the reality-based community and anyone who disagrees with them either has a bad brain, or in some other way rejects empiricism and science, and they are the only ones working with the building blocks of facts and reason,” says National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, author of the new book, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

“And I call bullshit on that.”

Goldberg, who became the editor of National Review Online in 1999, is responsible for creating the tone and format of the highly trafficked website, which built on the magazine’s venerable reputation while signaling, as he puts it, “that this is not your father’s National Review.” Goldberg’s new book, which follows his best-selling 2008 Liberal Fascism, argues that liberals should stop claiming their ideas derive solely from science and fact but never ideology–a way of arguing that stifles honest debate. Liberal arguments sometimes take the form of hackneyed cliches meant to sound self-evident but that in reality disguise a political bent, such as “violence never solves anything” or “I may disagree with you but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Goldberg sat down with ReasonTV’s Nick Gillespie for a wide-ranging discussion about liberal and conservative discourse, his early vision for National Review Online, and the firing of long-time National Review contributor John Derbyshire for writing a racist article in Taki’s Magazine. Goldberg also explains why he plans to vote for Mitt Romney despite his lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive GOP nominee.”

From Reason Magazine 

This is what I like about Jonah Goldberg and I’ll admit as a Liberal I have a short list of what I like about him. And could lay that out in under a paragraph, but he seems to understand the differences between Liberals and Socialists, at least to this extent. That he describes people who have been called “Modern Liberals”, as Progressives, (people who I could call Socialists) not Liberal. Even though like a lot of right-wingers, still throws out those old stereotypes that make Liberals look more like Socialists.

Jonah even has described his own politics as classical liberal, at least to a certain extent and sounds like a real Conservative in the classical sense. Not someone in today’s Christian-Theocratic-Populist Republican Party, but more with the Barry Goldwater line of thinking ideology, not Rick Santorum. (To use as an example) That’s what I like about Jonah Goldberg, in under a paragraph. But then says things that Liberals don’t believe in ideology, even though we wrote the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with Conservatives.

But Jonah says we don’t believe in ideology and that we get on and put people who do believe in ideology and we look down at people, who don’t look at the world exactly the way we do. And to use Jonah Goldberg’s line, “I call bullshit on that”. If Jonah used these stereotypes just to describe people who he sees as “Modern Liberals”, people who are Democratic Socialists, in the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus mode, then I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Because of the way he describes the politics of a lot of these people.

I agree with Jonah to a certain extent, but when he calls them Liberals and says that “Liberals believe in bloated big government” and our ideology is built around the welfare state. How we can empower the Federal Government to take care of people, again to use Jonah’s line, I call bullshit on him. Because he’s describing the politics of today’s so-called Progressives (who are really Democratic Socialists) and not my politics. And when he focus’s on big government, he only does it from one side of the aisle and doesn’t go after big government supporters from his own side of the aisle. He doesn’t go after the Christian-Right in his own party. Unlike myself who has long enough arms to pat myself on the back.

If Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about the big government leanings about the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus and other so-called modern Progressive Democrats and then also wrote a book about the big Government leanings about the Religious-Right, then I would take him more seriously. But the current track right now seems to try to make so-called Liberals look like people they aren’t. And only goes after the big government fascist views of one side of the aisle and sound more like a partisan hack to me more than anyone else. 

Liberty Pen: Harry Browne- 'Defining Morality'

Source:Liberty Pen- 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne in 2002.

"Harry Browne lectures from his masterpiece book, "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

Morality: "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." 

If you want my definition of morality, I'll give it to you anyway: morality I believe the code of conduct that governs how we treat each other. People who are raised right or are simply born with good character don't hurt others intentionally, other than in self-defense or to protect an innocent person from being hurt. And good, moral people don't hurt innocent people intentionally. And when we do hurt innocent people (intentionally or otherwise) there are legal and civil consequences that come from our bad behavior. 

I personally view my politics as liberal, but if you want to describe me as classical liberal, that's your right. But I believe Americans have the right to live their own lives exactly the way they want to, short of hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. That's what I have in common with Libertarians like the Harry Browne's and others. 

I don't believe people should be fined or put in jail simply for hurting themselves or doing something that violates someone else's religious or cultural values. But if we choose to hurt any innocent person or hurt innocent people simply by being irresponsible, there should be legal and perhaps civil consequences for our bad behavior.