The Atlantic: Dino Grandoni- ‘Jon Stewart Explains Comedy to FOX News’

Source:The Atlantic- The Daily Show with the real Jon Stewart.

Source:Real Life Journal

“As the brouhaha continues over Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment, Jon Stewart took a look at how the right is covering the story, asking, how should Fox News handle the recent dose of Rush-brand hate-mongering? By pointing out that the left has its own hatemonger in Bill Maher, who once called Sarah Palin a bad word himself. Fox’s hosts accuse Maher (and liberals in general) of cloaking their comments in the veil comedy, but Stewart rightly notes that comedians like himself get criticized for racy jokes constantly. He adds that top-rated Fox News isn’t really in the position to call itself anyone’s victim.” 

From The Atlantic 

“When Fox News seeks recognition for their reporting on the shooting of Michael Brown case, liberal Hollywood and the network’s number one fan offer their praise.” 

Source:Comedy Central- The Daily Show with the real Jon Stewart.

From Comedy Central 

The only reason for me at least to watch FNC or Fox News Channel and for that matter to be “fair and balanced”, MSNBC prime time on weeknights, is to find out what’s not going on in the world. To get some comic relief and perhaps some ideas for my political satire. Because FNC is basically the RNC, laying out the positions and the spin of the Republican base. And MSNBC prime time Monday-Friday, is basically the mouthpiece for so-called progressive, not liberal (Socialist, if accuracy means anything) Democrats.

The Democrats and so-called progressive (social democratic, in actuality) third-parties, that don’t like President Obama and the Democratic Leadership, because they aren’t “progressive enough” and aren’t Socialists like themselves. Which is what they thought they were getting during the 2008 general elections.

If you’re going to listen to FNC seriously, not to make fun of it, but to actually find out what’s going on in the world, do yourself a big favor: check at least two other credible news sources. Like a good reporter and you better know what that is before you take FNC seriously.

If you’re listening to Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, David Asman and others, Bill O’Reilly to a certain extent (but he isn’t as bad as the others)  you’re basically hearing what they want to tell you. What makes their political views look best and you’re hearing a lot of political gossip, that’s designed to hurt Democrats and that’s what you get from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on MSNBC at the expense of Republicans.

I swear I get more facts from The Onion (something I read everyday) than from FNC or Maddow and Schultz.

The Onion is seriously about news satire and doesn’t hide from that and they take stories that are true and make them as funny as possible by adding humor to them. When FNC says “Fair and Balanced”, you should take that as a joke that you would hear from The Onion. Because they are only “Fair and Balanced” to their own side.

Mises Media: Gerard Casey- 'Libertarian Anarchy: Against The State'

Source:Mises Media- Gerard Casey about his book about Libertarian Anarchy.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Presented at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference.  Recorded 8 March 2012 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.  Includes an introduction by Mark Thornton." 

From Mises Media

Just to start off and I doubt I’m the first person to notice this and at risk of sounding awful and mean: doesn’t Gerard Casey, especially with that mustache, resemble Adolf Hitler?

I have a lot of respect for classical libertarianism, even as a Liberal, because libertarianism at its core is the real thing. And what it actually is about both economic and personal freedom. That Americans, have the right to live their own lives as long as they aren’t infringing on others freedom to live their own lives. And that it’s not anti-state, but anti-big state and anti-big government all together. 

When Libertarian Ron Paul says he’s against big government, you better believe him! And when Rick Santorum says he is against big government, you ask him: “So its okay with you if I watch an adult movie, or go to a club with dancers and so-forth?” Because he thinks those things should be outlawed, because he sees them as immoral. But Libertarians are the real thing when it comes to being against big government, because they actually are. And don’t just say they are against big government, because they believe it works for them politically.

It’s not Libertarianism in its real form that I’m against so much as a Liberal. Because real Libertarians are against big government. But they aren’t against government all together. And the key point being that people should be free to live their own lives, as long as they aren’t infringing on others to live there’s. So if two guys want to marry each other, Libertarians wouldn’t have a problem with that. Or if someone wants to go to an adult nightclub with strippers and so-forth, even male strippers, the Libertarian wouldn’t have a problem with that. 

But where I disagree with so-called Anarcho-Libertarians: if someone breaks into someone else’s home without a good reason, or batters that person, or rapes that person, or does other things to infringe on innocent people’s freedom to live their lives, they believe that government has no role to protect us not from ourselves, but from people who would hurt us. See, Classical Libertarians, aren’t anti-government, but they are anti-big government. And believe that the government that we have today is too big and has too much responsibility when it comes to economic and personal issues.

People who I call Anarcho-Libertarians, who are Anarchists. (To be real about it) So I call them Anarcho-Libertarians, because even though they call themselves Libertarians, they aren’t just anti-big government, but they are anti-government period. And do not seem to have a role for government to do anything. And now even seem to believe that government arresting and prosecuting criminals who’ve hurt people, violates these criminals freedoms and constitutional rights. Freedom to do what: hurt innocent people? 

We do have the freedom to hurt innocent people  in this country. Americans tend to want big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms, out of our personal lives. But they do want government to disappear and not be there to do the things that we need it to do. And tend to believe in things like environmental protection and public education. But generally speaking, libertarianism in its real sense and not the anarcho version, has a real future in American politics.

The Gary Johnson‘s of the world have a real future in American politics. Because they are anti-big government. And even though they would like to see the Federal Government much smaller than it is today and would have to sell that to voters as far as how much smaller and why, they could succeed. Because they do believe there is a proper role of government and not looking to dismantle it. Just dismantle big government. 

But as far as Anarcho-Libertarians are concern, they are essentially Anarchists and are anti-government period. And perhaps would be better off moving to a country that doesn’t have any real government. Like Somalia and see how that works out for them.

IVN: Wes Messamore- ‘Maryland Handgun Ruling a Victory for Second Amendment Supporters’

Source:IVN- The U.S. Congress in black and white. This could be a scene from Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

Source:FreeState Now 

“There’s never been a better time in America for gun rights advocates. Starting in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision, continuing through 2010 with the McDonald case, and showing no signs of abating this Monday after the Woollard ruling was filed by a federal court in Maryland: in just a few short years the country has been swept with a wave of unprecedented court decisions that have amounted to nothing less than a revolution for gun rights and jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” 

From IVN 

Just to be clear: I’m pro-2nd Amendment and I believe that all adults in the United States that are of sound mind and aren’t criminals and are capable of managing guns, then they should be able to do that if they choose to and can afford it. But as long as we know that they are capable of managing the gun or guns they want to purchase and if they are qualified to manage these guns, then they should have the right to do so. 

As a Liberal, I believe in live and let live, that is we have to live together as a society whether we like it or not, we should just let people live their own lives, just as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And we aren’t stuck paying for the consequences of their decisions. Then we should let people live their own lives.

Los Angeles Times: Charlotte Allen- Liberals vs. Conservatives'

Source:DC Ist- Los Angeles Times columnist Charlotte Allen. I wish I could find a better picture of her.

"A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled “How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must).” With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no “how” in talking to a liberal. You can’t talk to a liberal, period.

Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends (I went to college and grad school). Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I’m greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.

The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we’re evil. Tell a liberal that you hope President Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election, and you’ll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you’re a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque on the spot where one of the planes’ fuselages fell in the 9/11massacre, and you’re an Islamophobe. If you support the tea party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor-people, anti-tolerance and a “fascist” to boot... 

You can read the rest of Charlotte Allen's piece at the Los Angeles Times  

“A Republican wants a chunk of Southern California to secede and become the 51st state. Ana Kasparian and comedian Jimmy Dore discuss if we should split the United States into a red country and a blue country.” 

Source:The Young Turks- NBC News's Tim Russert's prediction coming true?

From The Young Turks

I think the main problem with the Left in America (or at least the Far-Left) is that they divide everything into Right versus Left or their version of Right versus Left.

So according to the Left (at least according to Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore) California is divided between 1960s left-wing hippies and today’s hipsters, who was just want to give piece a chance and want government to be generous with other people’s money and have government provide everyone with all sorts of what they call free services.

And on the Right (at least according to Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore) they are just a bunch of 19th century, backwards looking and thinking country bumpkins, who think Italians and Jews (let alone Latinos and Middler Easterners) and everyone else with dark hair and olive complexion are foreigners and invaders to their Confederate States of America (what they call the United States) who want to nationalize religion and require all of their citizens to carry guns and prey to Jesus everyday. If only life, especially American life were that simple.

I don’t even live in California, but I know from what I’ve read and seen about it, as well as having family there, that California is not divided between some Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, confederate theocracy, and some hippie, socialist state, where the rest of California lives. But if you watch Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore here and you’ve never even heard of California, let alone have lived there, you might believe that’s exactly how California is divided today. And then of course you probably also believe in UFO’s and flying marshmallows as well.

The Atlantic: Dino Grandoni- 'Jon Stewart Shows That Pandering Can be Tricky'

Source:The Atlantic- do you get Jon Stewart's point?

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Since every candidate is doing it, pandering may seem pretty easy. But as Jon Stewart discovers, it’s pretty easy to slip up. On The Daily Show we see Newt Gingrich regretting ever saying English is the “language of prosperity” now that he needs Hispanic votes, while Mitt Romney proves he’s no Barack Obama with his rendition of “America the Beautiful.” As for the president himself? Asking for people’s resumes online makes him look no less of a panderer.” 

From The Atlantic 

“This is the reason CNN’s Crossfire is no longer on the air. Jon Stewart shows up these two ignorant political show hosts… 2 against 1, on their own show, and brings to light how these shows “Hurt America.” Thank you Jon for always pointing out political hypocrisy. I hope continuing to broadcast this video helps your voice continue to be heard.” 

Source:Alex Felker- political satirist Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire in 2004.

From Alex Felker 

As far as American politicians and their pandering and just the way we are in 2012: a career politician who is not a panderer, would be like a fish out of water, a pilot without a plane, a lawyer who never passed the bar. Career politicians can’t stay in office without the pandering. 

I mean imagine a honest politician who only told his or her voters the truth and these are the problems and this is what we need to do to solve them, they would have to go get real jobs, but at least they would be able to tell the truth without having to worry about getting fired for doing just that. 

As much as American voters say they want honest politicians and honesty in government, they almost always never vote for it. So as much as Jon Stewart might say it’s the system that’s the problem with American politics and government, it’s the voters who keep voting for and subsidizing that very system.

I think the point that political satirist Jon Stewart was trying to get across to Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson in 2004, is that Begala and Carlson and the hyper-partisans that they represent from the Left and Right, is exactly what’s wrong with America. And they represent the problem with America, at least as it has to do with our political system. With Begala and Carlson seeming to go out-of-their-way to make Stewart’s point with their hyper-partisanship.

CNN: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- 'Ready To Be The Oldest President'

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) at the CNN GOP debate.

"Ron Paul says he is ready to be oldest president of the United States and he is willing to release his medical records." 

From CNN 

I'm not sure that Ron Paul is prepared to be the oldest President of the United States, not because he's not physically and mentally fit to be President, but because I believe he's realistic enough and tends to walk on Planet Earth with both of his feet on the ground and knows he's not going to be President of the United States. 

This populist-Christian-Right-Tea Party (also known as the modern Republican Party) is simply not going to nominate for President, a Libertarian who wants nothing to do with the Cultural War, let alone would fight that war for them as President. Libertarians believe in to each his own and live and let live. Which are actually Christian values, as well as Libertarian values. But they're not modern Republican Party values.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- '3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now!'

Source:Reason Magazine- no wonder The Pentagon is so big: we spend 700 hundred billion on it every year.

"The Congressional Budget Office projects that if we keep spending the way we have been, federal debt held by the public will grow from around 60 percent of GDP to a whopping 82 percent of GDP over the next decade, with no end in sight. That's the sort of borrowing that can ruin a country's economy.... 

From Reason Magazine

If you want to know why we have trillion-dollar budget deficit and a 17 trillion-dollar national debt, I'll tell you anyway: 

When you borrow 700 billion-dollars to double the size of a Medicare program that's already facing financial problems and go to war twice in 18 months thousands of miles from home against third-world countries that represent no threat to us, and are responsible for the national defense for other developed countries and they get that defense at American taxpayers expense, you are going to run high deficits every year and pile on your national debt. Oh yeah, the Great Recession and the steps that were taken to deal with it are also part of our budget deficit. 

To say that there is no room to cut in the defense budget, is like saying there's no more water in the Pacific Ocean. I guess people were just too thirsty and ran out of places to bathe. It makes absolutely no sense and and is completely believable. It's also admitting that you are not a fiscal conservative and you don't give a damn about fiscal responsibility. 

You can't cut Food Assistance and Public Housing your way to fiscal sanity and health and to one day when you've finally balanced the budget. You have to go where the money is, which is in defense, entitlements, and the tax code that almost no one understands.