Liz Wolfe: Did You Ask the FCC If You Can Make That Joke?

"Plus: America's cocaine habit, how Charlie Kirk handled South Park, and more...

Jimmy Kimmel pulled off the air: Yesterday evening, ABC News (a subsidiary of Disney) announced it was suspending comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show "indefinitely" following factually inaccurate comments he made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of course, comedians have no obligation to be factually correct. Kimmel's show is intended as a hybrid between comedy and news, though, so it's fair to wonder whether he does. "The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," said Kimmel during his Monday night monologue. "In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving." A montage of President Donald Trump followed, making fun of how, though people have claimed Kirk was like a son to the president, he's moved on rather quickly.

It wasn't especially good or funny. It also was somewhat anodyne. To overly psychologize for a moment, I wonder whether Trump pivoted to talking about construction at the White House when reporters asked him about Kirk's death because he is, in fact, distraught about it but didn't feel up to going there. We can't know. Kimmel's shot felt cheap. But Kimmel is allowed to be bad—he's been bad for a while.

The issue is that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr suggested the agency might punish ABC, pulling its broadcast license in retribution. On conservative Benny Johnson's podcast, Carr suggested Kimmel's comments were part of a "concerted effort to lie to the American people," and that the FCC was "going to have remedies that we can look at."

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," said Carr, ominously. "These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead."

"Just before ABC's announcement, Nexstar Media Group said that its stations that are affiliated with ABC would pre-empt Kimmel's show 'for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight's show,'" reports CNBC. Nexstar, which owns 10 percent of ABC's affiliate stations, is in the process of securing FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, which owns roughly 5 percent of the affiliate stations.

"Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED," wrote the president on Truth Social. "Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that's possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!"

Courage sure is an interesting word choice, given that Trump's own agency threatened them with consequences (though he's not wrong if we're solely judging him as a media critic).

"I don't think this is a legal issue," said former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno on CNN. "I don't think this can be pointed to the FCC or the Trump administration and say, well, this is about them going after Kimmel because of what he said. Personally, I think it's more of a cultural issue. And I got to tell you. I'm about as moderate a Republican as you can get. I'm from New York. I have not been comfortable watching late-night television for 15 years because when you have conservative leanings and you're constantly mocked and you're constantly feel like you're doing something wrong, you shut it off. You don't watch it anymore."

Some people have made the point that the FCC might have given Disney/ABC cover to do something they already wanted to do, and do it in a way that makes the Trump administration look like the bad guys:

I also think this point is very fair, which is that this didn't start yesterday. If you haven't noticed the extraordinary media jawboning—indirect censorial pressure directed at private companies from the federal government—over the last few years, you haven't been paying much attention:

"The government pressured ABC—and ABC caved," wrote Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. "The timing of ABC's decision, on the heels of the FCC chairman's pledge to the network to 'do this the easy way or the hard way,' tells the whole story. Another media outlet withered under government pressure, ensuring that the administration will continue to extort and exact retribution on broadcasters and publishers who criticize it. We cannot be a country where late night talk show hosts serve at the pleasure of the president. But until institutions grow a backbone and learn to resist government pressure, that is the country we are."

Cohn makes a good point, both that this is the direct result of government coercion that is wrong and disturbing, and that these institutions should not be in the business of caving. It's disturbing to see massive law firms, media outlets, and organizations that should have some amount of fuck-you money choose the path of cowardice. But given that Disney has been interested in fighting the government before (albeit in a different context), the fact that they weren't willing to do so this time makes me think maybe Kimmel was already a goner...

Source:Reason Magazine contributing editor Liz Wolfe.

From Reason Magazine

Libertarian commentator Yaron Brook has some great observations about free speech and Attorney General Pam Bondi: 

"Pam Bondi's Horrible Take on Charlie Kirk and Free Speech Sparks Huge Backlash" 

Source:Yaron Brook with a look at the Chief Consigliere for The Don of Washington.

From Yaron Brook

We already have 3 posts about the attacks on free speech in America this week. Mine will be the 4th... but that's only 4 posts out of 5 days. So what are you complaining about? 

Erik Schneider: 

"I'm just getting to Chris Cillizza's point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful. 

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech... then we have an Attorney General who doesn't even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has. 

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is... we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison... have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous."

From The New Democrat

Rik Schneider: 

"I'm not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole... any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated... anything that they want to talk about. 

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That's what's known as an exchange of ideas and open debate...

From The New Democrat

Derik Schneider: 

"But as Erik and Rik have already mentioned this week, we believe liberal democracy and free speech is for everyone, not just people who agree with us. As the great Conservative Ronald Wilson Reagan said: 

"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor".

To make a partisan statement: I'm willing to bet anything that Donald J. Trump completely disagrees with President Reagan on this. 

The point we're making here at The New Democrat, is American liberal democracy is big enough for the Charlie Kirk's, the Pat Buchanan's, the Phyllis Schlafly's,.. even people as verbally disgusting as David Duke and Don Trump. As well as "The Squad" and their far-leftist allies. 

The main reason why the Communist Party is even allowed to exist in America, is because we have the First Amendment (that they don't believe in) and their ideology is so unpopular, that they would never even have any real power in this country, anyway. 

The reason why the far-right is able to exist, is agains because of the First Amendment. But their ideas are so bad an unpopular and even though they're in power now in America, at least the executive level, we still have checks and balances that can contain them. And they peacefully won the election last year. 

So America has never been a majoritarian democracy. As much as President Trump may want to rewrite the First Amendment, perhaps even erase it through executive order, our checks and balances won't allow him to do that. We're not a majoritarian democracy, we're not a social democracy. But America is a liberal democracy and 1 of our liberal values is free speech for everyone. Not just for the educated and the enlightened (to paraphrase Rik Schneider from yesterday) but for everyone that calls America home."

From The New Democrat

On Tuesday, Erik told you that The New Democrat will have a series of 3 posts about free speech in America in relation to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Yeah... Erik lied, because this is the 4th. Actually, when you write in the Blogosphere, news changes so fast and sometimes you have change your plans to try to keep up with it, which is the real reason why this is the 4th 1 because of ABC firing heir late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, because President Trump doesn't like him. 

So, no one at The New Democrat is a lawyer, but what I'm going to give you a circumstantial case for why and how the Trump Administration used government pressure on ABC, to fire Jimmy Kimmel. And then I'll respond to what both Liz Wolfe said, as well as Yaron Brook. 

So on Monday night, ABC late night talk show host said this about Charlie Kirk and MAGA: 

"The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." 

On Wednesday - Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, publicly criticized ABC for Kimmel's remarks, threatening regulatory action.

That same day - The suspension followed decisions by major station owners like Sinclair and Nexstar to preempt the show on their local ABC affiliates.

On Thursday - aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that networks giving him bad press "maybe" deserve to have their licenses taken away.

Trump also stated that it would be "up to Brendan Carr" to make such a decision, calling the FCC chairman "outstanding" and a "patriot". 

This information courtesy of Google

As my other colleague Fred Schneider wrote on Threads last night: 

"Does MAGA really want a left-wing Democratic administration to have the same power over speech that they don't like, that the Trump Administration is trying to use right now? Of course not. But that's what they're going to get, if they keep trying to cancel people simply because they don't like their speech." 

From Fred Schneider

This is the Liz Wolfe comment that I want you to focus on... but not like a lazar. Because that cliche is so old that's it's now the great grandparent of, "it is what it is". But this is what she said: 

"Of course, comedians have no obligation to be factually correct. Kimmel's show is intended as a hybrid between comedy and news, though, so it's fair to wonder whether he does. "The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," said Kimmel during his Monday night monologue. "In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving." A montage of President Donald Trump followed, making fun of how, though people have claimed Kirk was like a son to the president, he's moved on rather quickly.

It wasn't especially good or funny. It also was somewhat anodyne. To overly psychologize for a moment, I wonder whether Trump pivoted to talking about construction at the White House when reporters asked him about Kirk's death because he is, in fact, distraught about it but didn't feel up to going there. We can't know. Kimmel's shot felt cheap. But Kimmel is allowed to be bad—he's been bad for a while..

So, "comedians have no obligation to be factually correct". Now, similar to tabloid publications, tabloid shows, they can't just openly defame and lie about people, especially for profit on air. You could say Jimmy Kimmel's comment: 

"The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." 

was in bad taste and I would agree with that. You could also argue that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) controls on air licenses in America. I might disagree with that, but even if that's right, as Fred Schneider said: 

"Does MAGA really want a left-wing Democratic administration to have the same power over speech that they don't like, that the Trump Administration is trying to use right now? Of course not. But that's what they're going to get, if they keep trying to cancel people simply because they don't like their speech."

I mean assuming we survive the Trump Administration (perhaps I should start praying for that everyday) and the next President (hopefully starting in January, 2029) is a pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law... pro-law & order, (if you will President) does MAGA really want a Democratic administration, going after the Greg Gutfeld's, the Sean Hannity's, the Jesse Watters, the Laura Ingraham's? Because they all have bad habits of flat-out lying, or not even knowing what they're even talking about, when they do their commentaries (advertised as news) every night to their audiences. 

I would bet anything that 4 years from now, if there is a Democratic administration at that point, MAGA and company will start pretending to be "champions of free speech again", if a Democratic led FCC starts targeting their commentators. 

And Attorney General Pam Bondi's on going after hate speech: 

"There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech," Bondi said in an interview with "The Katie Miller Podcast" that aired Monday, appearing to shrug off First Amendment concerns.

We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything — and that’s across the aisle.

You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live. There is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...

Yaron Brook responded to the Attorney General's comments with: 

"Now, will somebody tell me what's the differences between this and the WOKE Left? Somebody tell me what's the difference between this and what the Left (I would argue far-left) about hate speech? Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment... since when? That's why the First Amendment is there, to protect hate speech... 

To answer Yaron Brook's question: the only difference between the far-left and far-right in America when it comes to hate speech and political correctness, is the same difference between coffee house hipsters when it comes to their coffee: they all drink coffee, but they don't all drink the same coffee drink. Someone like espresso, some like lattes, etc. 

When it comes to political correctness when it comes to the far's in American politics, you can say whatever you want, just as long as you are on your team and they agree with you. But when the other side says something ":hateful", then they label that hate speech and not protected by the First Amendment. 

And just 1 more thing about Jimmy Kimmel and I'll finally end this: (and go check to see if it's still Friday or not, or if it's Saturday morning with the sun coming up) if you are a Gen-Xer like myself, you are old enough to remember when "Republicans" at least claimed to be in favor of the "free market" and free speech. They don't pretend anymore. They now control all the levers of the government, except for the courts. And when you say or do something that they don't like, the Constitution doesn't exist in their world. And they'll come after you with as much force as they can get away with. 

In a true free market and liberal democracy, (which is America is struggling to hold onto everyday during the Trump Administration) the Jimmy Kimmel's, the Greg Gutfeld's, the Seth Meyers, the Sean Hannity's, the Jesse Watters's, the Laura Ingraham's, the SNL's, would have the freedom to communicate and express whatever they think on current events, as much as they want... short of defamation, libel and incitement. And their audiences (what's known as the free market) would get to decide how good or bad they are and whether they should stay on the air or not. But that's not the world we live in right now. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Nick Gillespie: Did MAGA Kill The Tea Party?

"Former Rep. Justin Amash and Fox News’ Kennedy join Nick Gillespie to examine how MAGA populism reshaped the Tea Party’s limited-government mission, why Congress no longer acts as a check on power, and what it will take to spark a new libertarian revival... 

From Reason Magazine

"In 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did surprisingly well with a campaign focused on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending the Federal Reserve, and reducing the size and spending of the federal government. Two years later, the Tea Party movement burst on the scene, bringing people like Paul’s son Rand to the Senate and one of today’s guests, Justin Amash, to the House of Representatives. In 2012, Ron Paul again ran for the GOP nod, finishing second to the eventual nominee Mitt Romney, and helping to usher in what The New York Times called “the libertarian moment.”

What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution’s and Tea Party’s promise to shrink government, especially once Donald Trump and the MAGA movement emerged in 2015? Did the broad-based alliance that rose to cut spending and limit power transmogrify into one that prizes wielding the state instead of restraining it?

Today’s episode was recorded live on Saturday, August 9 at Ron Paul’s 90th Birthday BBQ in Lake Jackson, Texas. The guests are former Rep. Amash and Fox News personality Kennedy. They talk with Nick Gillespie about how the MAGA movement grew out of the Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party and redirected the right’s anti-establishment energy toward expanding government power rather than limiting it. They also discuss why Congress refuses to legislate, whether social media has expanded freedom or increased anxiety, and if Gen Z is libertarian or conformist." 

Source:Reason Magazine talking to former U.S. Representative Justin Amash & Reason Magazine anchor Lisa Kennedy. 

From Reason Magazine

From Britannica about the early days of the 20th Century Tea Party: 

"Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls...

From Britannica

The Tea Party at it's best, (I guess from a Liberal Democratic perspective) was movement of lots of ordinary Americans, who were literally getting screwed by the Great Recession and were very angry at Washington for that, during a time when the national debt was growing out-of-control, when trillion-dollar budget deficits were now the norm. And you had all these constitutional and fiscal conservatives in this movement who got reelected to Congress because they were against big government, high debt and deficits. 

But then Donald Trump runs for President in 2015-16, wins in 2016 and now all the sudden debt, deficits, and big government, are no longer concerns with the Tea Party, because their man is now in-charge and those things don't matter to them, as long as they're in charge. 

You can blame MAGA for a lot of things, but most of their members either at the activist level or who are in public office, are politicians at heart. If running against high debt and deficits, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government, we're popular and winning issues for them, they would still be running on those issues. 

It's 1 thing to go after the national debt and deficit, when the other party is in power and you don't expect anything to ever be done about that, as long as the other party is in power, or at least controls The White House. But it's another thing when you are now in complete control of government and now have the power and responsibility to deal with those fiscal issues and then have to run on the fact that you've just cut all these government programs or reformed them, to help deal with the deficit and debt. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Austin Bragg & Andrew Heaton: Washington Parade Fail

"The federal government's parade route becomes a parade rout.

Starring Austin Bragg and Andrew Heaton.

Parade footage generated by VideoGen from Envato." 

Source:Yahoo News giving us Reason to look at.

From Reason Magazine

So in case anyone who is just waking up from a coma, just as they're reading this, (talk about luck) or this is literally your first day in America, (perhaps you literally were born not yesterday, but today) the President of the United States is going to have a parade in Washington celebrating... (any guesses?) himself on Saturday. 

The Trump parade is advertised as a military parade, but it's really going to be a North Korean and Russian style parade honoring the dictator. Or in this case... the wannabe dictator. And with any luck, there will be enough rain in Washington on Saturday, not just to wash this authoritarian parade away, but Donald John Trump's world class, gigantic ego. We can always hope and pray. 

But this is not what this Reason video is about. From looking at that, this is about Social Security and Federal entitlement programs in general. The premise being that they're all headed for bankruptcy, unless Congress and the Administration prevents that. And they do that by showing all these different parade boats that are headed for lamp posts, if nothing is done to prevent those bankruptcies from happening. 

This Reason video is kind of funny, but the premise is hard to see, unless you are not already familiar with libertarian humor and Federal entitlements. Which tells me that the only audience that Reason Magazine (which has been around since 1968) still has, are just Libertarians, who are still 1 of the smallest voting blocs in America. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liz Wolfe: Bernie Sanders: American Success Story

"Fighting oligarchy from the P.J.: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and I actually have a lot in common: We both think private jets are super cool. The only problem is that he's trying to brand himself as "fighting oligarchy," whereas I have no interest in being a foot soldier in that fight.

Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) have been traveling the country doing speaking events and rallies on their "Fighting Oligarchy" tour, which aims to "take on the oligarchs and corporate interests who have so much power and influence in this country."

On Fox's Special Report with Bret Baier, Sanders was asked about his choice of transport. "You run a campaign, and you do three or four or five rallies in a week. [It is] the only way you can get around to talk to 30,000 people. You think I'm going to be sitting on a waiting line at United…while 30,000 people are waiting?" Sanders replied. FEC filings show that Friends of Bernie Sanders, his campaign committee, spent over $221,000 chartering private jets during the first quarter of 2025.

Sanders—who enjoys a house in Burlington, Vermont, another one in D.C., and a third at Lake Champlain, all of which he says are modest properties—might be part of the very oligarchy he claims to want to smash. He mentions on Lex Fridman's show that he didn't receive some massive inheritance; he grew up poor, but it's his book deals, his royalties, and his $175,000 annual salary that allow him and his wife to afford their homes. He notes that he drives an old car and just has a watch and a wedding ring, but that now they're financially secure such that they don't have to worry about surprise medical bills, which is "enormous" for their family. Good!

What Sanders appears to dislike is vulgar wealth. But what he doesn't understand is that his spending, justify it as he might, probably looks showy to those who are poorer than him. How many Americans have ever been on a private jet or owned a vacation home?

More importantly, what Sanders is describing—his slow crawl up the socioeconomic ladder, due to writing books that people value and want to read and representing ideas that people value and want to circulate and his ability to enjoy the attendant conveniences—is exactly what capitalists like me want more of (though ideally the ideas themselves would be better). If you subtract all the socialism-peddling, Bernie Sanders is an American success story who went from rags to (modest) riches. More of this, please!

Plenty of fellow politicians are be-clowning themselves by suggesting that, of course, Sanders has to fly private:

But Sanders and his defenders should ask themselves why this logic applies to politicians but not CEOs making decisions about billion-dollar businesses, which surely generate more economic value than the Fighting Oligarchy tour ever could. By misunderstanding who creates value in our economy (and how), Sanders is showing how ill-suited he is to restructure it. And by making excuses for why he gets to enjoy the spoils of his success, Sanders is showing that, actually, he too believes in the upward-mobility promise of the American dream... 

Source:Reason Magazine with a look at U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Reason Magazine

You can see Senator Sanders interview with FOX News anchor Bret Baier right here: 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., explains why he considers the nation's political system 'largely corrupt' and aims to fight 'authoritarianism' under President Donald Trump's administration on 'Special Report... 

Source:FOX News talking to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From FOX News

So FOX News anchor asked Senator Sanders about spending $221,000 dollars on private jets to help him do this "Fight The Oligarchy" tour and Senator Sanders responded to that with a question of his own: 

"When was the last time that you saw Donald Trump in a campaign mode at National Airport?' 

And Bret Baier had the perfect response to that: 

"No, no, no, it doesn't. But he isn't fighting the Oligarchy". 

Donald Trump is proud to be an oligarch and doesn't hide from that... generally. 

But this is how Senator Sanders answered Baier's question: 

"You think I should wait on line at United? No apologies for my private jets."

From what I wrote about today's Socialists on Wednesday: 

"But could you imagine if Socialists, even in the Democratic Party ever came to power in America? I mean their whole lifestyle, their culture, their way of life, is dependent and completely subsidized by the American capitalist and liberal democratic system. And most of them know that. Most of these folks are educated. Most of these folks make good livings for themselves, even millionaires. 

Representative Alexandria O. Cortez couldn't even afford to pay her own rent in Washington, when she moved here in 2019. Now she's worth $30 million dollars. That's what can happen to you become famous and have a large following of young hipsters, who think you are the coolest thing since skinny jeans and smartphones and you write a book or 2. 

So 1, I don't see Socialists ever coming to power in America, even if they're "Democrats". Because once people start thinking about what it would mean to have a socialist government in America, voters stop being impressed by all the hipster catch phrases and other fashion statements that these folks make and start thinking about how much a socialist government would cost them. 

And 2, the left-wing in America, when the rubber meets the road, when everyone is at the starting gate, when the 2 warriors meet in the ring, etc... when it's time to get down and do some business... they don't want a socialist government either, because that would destroy their way of life and ability to joy life and afford all the high-end things that consumes them. But it's cool to sound like a militant hipster, (especially with young people) who wants to "take down the man" and wipeout poverty, disease, bigotry, etc. But when it gets down to how you do those things and how you pay for them, not even Socialists are interested in doing that in America." 

From The New Democrat

If there's such a thing as an "honest Socialist", (I would like to meet that person) Bernard Sanders is probably that person. But at the end of the day, Senator Sanders is a proud American, with a lot to be proud of: 

Son of poor Jewish-Ukrainian immigrants

He came from very modest means in Brooklyn

He worked his way through college and got a degree from both Brooklyn College and the University of Chicago 

Bernie Sanders built a career for himself: 

as a left-wing political activist 

before getting elected Mayor of Burlington, as a Socialist, in the 1980s

before getting elected to Congress in 1990, in the House of Representatives, before getting elected to the Senate in 2006. 

Before "The Squad", Bernie Sanders was the only self-described Socialist in the entire U.S. Congress (House or Senate) and now he's 1 of maybe 10 self-described Socialists in Congress, with the rest of them in the House. 

But, again at the end of the day, Bernie Sanders is a proud American, who has taken advantage of every opportunity that has come his way in this country, as well as creating a few opportunities for himself. And now he's probably worth $20 million-dollars, (give or take) with multiple homes. And he doesn't want Big Government taking away his way of life and lifestyle. And he's earned all that money while being a member of Congress, with base salary of around $200,000 a year, paid to him by taxpayers. 

So I just refer you to my point about this discussion about Socialists and reality, as well Socialists versus "the American way of life": 

"And 2, the left-wing in America, when the rubber meets the road, when everyone is at the starting gate, when the 2 warriors meet in the ring, etc... when it's time to get down and do some business... they don't want a socialist government either, because that would destroy their way of life and ability to joy life and afford all the high-end things that consumes them. But it's cool to sound like a militant hipster, (especially with young people) who wants to "take down the man" and wipeout poverty, disease, bigotry, etc. But when it gets down to how you do those things and how you pay for them, not even Socialists are interested in doing that in America." 

So is the "Fight The Oligarchy" tour... really that? Or is it just another political rock show, with everyone appearing in it, is 1 of the most popular political "rockstars" in the country, primarily funded by some of "coolest" and wealthiest celebrities in America? I think I just answered that question myself. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want as well. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

Liz Wolfe: Don't Trust the Experts: Make Them Up!

"Paging Ron Vara: If you were, say, a White House trade adviser who had been part of crafting the tariff plan that a) relied on a ChatGPT-based formula that makes no sense and levied tariffs on islands full of penguins, b) tanked the global economy, and c) was, so far, shockingly unpopular, wouldn't you want to put it all on someone else and have experts reaffirm your credibility?

Conveniently, the aforementioned Peter Navarro has his China hawk alter ego, Ron Vara. (Vara's writing, from 2011: "Only the Chinese can turn a leather sofa into an acid bath, a baby crib into a lethal weapon, and a cellphone battery into heart-piercing shrapnel." Well, OK!) Vara hasn't made an appearance just yet, but he's part of Navarro's rise to prominence.

Truly. I did not make this up. I'm not sure I even could.

Navarro's books contain repeated references to a man named Ron Vara, and in 2019 he co-authored a memo—advocating for tariffs—using that alter ego.

"Vara is a military veteran and Harvard-trained economist who made seven figures in the stock market by investing in companies that do well during international crises," in Navarro's telling, reported Tom Bartlett at The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2019. This has, per Navarro's books, earned him the nickname "Dark Prince of Disaster."

Why would Vara be valuable to Navarro? Well, Navarro is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to China hawkdom and expertise, having only first traveled there in 2018 and having no Mandarin knowledge or deep background; Vara's expertise—though made up—is something Navarro can rest on to back up his arguments. Or, perhaps Navarro uses Vara as a sort of imaginary friend, someone to consult with during long nights in his office. I get it, I have a toddler, we do lots of imaginary friends. I just didn't know they were being used to lend credibility to our nation's economic policy.

Navarro told The Chronicle of Higher Education that Vara was a "whimsical device and pen name I've used throughout the years for opinions and purely entertainment value, not as a source of fact," which is…not true (just as his there-will-be-no-recession talking point earlier this week is not likely to be true, either). He also apparently compared the invented character to "Alfred Hitchcock appearing briefly in cameo in his movies." (Some of Navarro's coauthors through the years, like Glenn Hubbard, former dean of Columbia University's business school, were not aware that Vara was made up, for what it's worth, and were not happy with this revelation... 

Source:Reason Magazine with a look at White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro. Mr. Navarro would be very smart to stay away from Senator Thom Tillis right now. Unless he hates breathing.

From Reason Magazine

The New Democrat talked about Peter Navarro, as well as Elon Musk on Tuesday: 

"The question is when will and who will the voters blame for Trumpenomics. And to go back to Senator Tillis's question: "Whose Throat Do I Get To Choke If Tariff Approach Fails?" I believe you are going to see long lines of people at political rallies, who would want to choke the hell out of Donald Trump for applying this braindead approach to economics. Except it won't be a hilarious, Hollywood movie scene. It will be real life." 

From The New Democrat

"If you think about it, Elon Musk could've been harder on Peter Navarro than he was and I'll give you a few examples: 

"What does a convicted felon know about economic policy anyway: 

What does he know about prices in this country, other than what food and clothing costs at his prison commissary? 

If Peter Navarro is so smart, how come he got caught, convicted, and landed in prison? Good thing for him, the 2024 RNC started the day he got out of prison, otherwise he would've had to watch it in the prison day room and wonder if he would even survived the experience. 

When has Peter Navarro ever had a job in his life where he wasn't working for Donald Trump? The President probably only hired him because he feels sorry for the poor schmuck, who can't get a good job anywhere else, because he's a convicted felon. And he didn't want to embarrass Navarro by having him take his next order for a Diet Coke, quarter pounder, with fries,  at a local McDonald's." 

(Mr. President, you want fries with that? Yes, Peter. And please keep your voice down so no one here figures out that we know each other.)

Just for the record: I'm not saying that Elon Musk said any of these things about Peter Navarro... publicly...

From The New Democrat

So I guess the answer to Senator Tom Tillis's question: "Whose Throat Do I Get To Choke If Tariff Approach Fails?" would be: Peter Navarro. I guess you say Wall Street investor Ron Vara as well. But Peter Nevarro would be easier for Senator Tillis to find right now. Unless Mr. Navarro found some White House tunnel that not even the Secret Service knows about and is now hiding there. Sort of how he came up with his tariff policy that almost no one seems to believe in. The man seems to be able to find things that no one else can. 

Donald Trump when he was running for President in 2016 said he: "would only hire the best and the brightest as President"

In January of this year, he said he would eliminate DEI "and only hire the best and the brightest". But: 

Pete Hegseth is now Secretary of Defense

Tulsi Gabbard is now Director of National Intelligence

Kash Patel, a man with an enemies list, is now Director of the FBI 

Michael Waltz is National Security Advisor

Both Secretary Hegseth (drunk or sober) and NSA Waltz gave us Signal Gate

Peter Navarro is The White House Trade Advisor, the man who is largely responsible for the Wall Street almost crashing last week, because of President Trump's tariffs. 

So does this mean that President Trump only hires "the best and the brightest from what's available and left to be hired", but he just doesn't share that with anyone publicly? Or, another possibly and I think it's an excellent 1: "the best and the brightest" simply don't want to work for Donald J. Trump? 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Reason: Katherine Mangu-Ward- Interviewing Dave Barry: 'Dave Barry Is Running for President (Again)'

Source:Reason Magazine- If you look at our current politicians and political candidates: why not comedian Dave Barry For President?

"Dave Barry is the author of approximately eleventy billion books and the recipient of exactly one Pulitzer Prize. For four decades he wrote a weekly column, syndicated from his home base at the Miami Herald, and he is the author of an annual, despairing, hilarious "Year in Review."

Barry's books formed the basis for a short-lived show about his life, Dave's World, and his novel Big Trouble was made into a film of the same name. It's the story of a group of miscreants who wind up inadvertently stealing a nuclear suitcase and hijacking a plane due to their own incompetence. The film was set to be released—inauspiciously—on September 12, 2001.

In June, Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Barry to talk about his new book, Lessons from Lucy, America's strategic helium reserve (which Barry last discussed with Reason in 1994), jokes he can't tell anymore, and his perennial vaguely libertarian campaign for the presidency."

Source:Reason Magazine- All aboard the Bernie Express 

Read more at Reason Magazine

The only thing that really makes Dave Barry different from politicians running for President, is that Barry is a professional comedian whose actual job is to make people laugh. Unlike our career politicians who sure, sound like they're part of some Saturday Night Live political skit, or a movie that's a political satire.

So if Donald Trump, can not just run for President but actually win the presidency and put America though this long national nightmare, or Mayor Bill DeBlasio who is not even popular in his own city, or a Socialist from Vermont can run for President from a major party, if Mitch McConnell, who is probably the biggest hypocrite not just in Congress, but all of Washington can run the U.S. Senate, then why not a professional comedian be able to run for President and we can see a Saturday Night Live comedy skit in real life.

Source:Reason

"America's favorite libertarian humorist on fake news, Florida, getting woke, and getting old.

Dave Barry is the author of approximately eleventy billion books and the recipient of exactly one Pulitzer Prize. For four decades he wrote a weekly column, syndicated from his home base at the Miami Herald, and he is the author of an annual, despairing, hilarious "Year in Review."

Barry's books formed the basis for a short-lived show about his life, Dave's World, and his novel Big Trouble was made into a film of the same name. It's the story of a group of miscreants who wind up inadvertently stealing a nuclear suitcase and hijacking a plane due to their own incompetence. The film was set to be released—inauspiciously—on September 12, 2001.

In June, Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Barry to talk about his new book, Lessons from Lucy, America's strategic helium reserve (which Barry last discussed with Reason in 1994), jokes he can't tell anymore, and his perennial vaguely libertarian campaign for the presidency.

Interview by Katherine Mangu-Ward. Intro by Todd Krainin. Edited by Ian Keyser. Cameras by Krainin and Mark McDaniel." 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: 'Why Bernie Sanders Communist Misadventures Still Matter'

Source:Reason Magazine- Bernie Sanders, hasn't always looked like someone's grandfather. LOL

"Sanders no longer favors government takeover of "the major means of production." But his four-decade quest for political revolution continues."

Source:Reason Magazine

Perhaps we can file Bernie Sanders even further Far-Leftist leanings back in the 1970s and 1980s as being young and stupid. And like a lot of people from his generation, perhaps he was someone who hadn't recovered from the 1960s yet emotionally and mentally. And to be completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) who isn't stupid when they are young and then once we get some real world experience, we become smarter ( if we have a brain and are capable of learning ) and who would want to be judged by how dumb they were as a young adult when they are middle age or in Bernie's case a senior citizen now.

Another way to look at Bernie Sanders flirtation with state socialism ( if you want to call it that and not communism ) is that no one can run away from their record. ( Don't believe me, ask Donald Trump ) And we're always accountable for everything that we do and say no matter how long we live and how much we change. So it's one thing for someone to say that their views changed and as they got more information and facts But that begs the questions: why did that person change their views and what have they learned. As well as why did they believe what they believed when they were younger.

I'm not saying that Bernie Sanders is a State-Socialist or a Communist today. I'm also not saying that Bernie is a Eugene Debbs Socialist where he wants the national government to run and manage the entire economy, but where personal freedom would be vast and we could even own our own personal property like our homes and perhaps small businesses. He's been in Congress since 1991 and at least since he's been in the Senate since 2007, today he's a Democratic Socialist at least as far as his Congressional record in the Senate at least and his current positions and proposals. But your record is exactly that and similar to your brain, it's not something that you can really ever run away from and is something that Democratic voters at least will be able to use to judge whether Bernie Sanders should be their presidential nominee or not. 

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: 'Moral Panic Over Sex Work'

Source:Reason Magazine- Referring to New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft: who was arrested for prostitution

"Police often accuse people of "sex trafficking." Usually, it’s simply prostitution.

Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a "sex trafficking" sting.

Law enforcment "had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren't allowed to leave," Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That's usually the case when it comes to "sex trafficking" busts, says Brown: "I'd say 99% of the headlines are not true."

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: "These women are true victims."

But the court documents "actually paint a very, very different story," Brown points out. "No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case."

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, "Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk".

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. "Many people debunked the study and say, 'This is just a total bullcrap number,'" Brown says.

She adds, "When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have."

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason." 

Source:Reason Magazine

Just for the record: I'm not in favor of what's called sex trafficking where you have at least very vulnerable, but perhaps very attractive women who are picked up ( if not kidnapped and enslaved ) with the promise that as long as they perform sex well, they'll always be taken care of. That kind of thing is dangerous, as well as immoral, and should be illegal. But that's not what this is about anyway and I only mention that because people who advocate for keeping prostitution illegal both on the Right and Left, say that we can't have prostitution, because it leads to sex trafficking. Which is simply wrong, but that should be pointed out. 

Anyone who argues that people should be in complete control over their own bodies, would be in favor of legalizing prostitution. If you believe in men should be in complete control over their own bodies as well, you should be in favor of legalizing prostitution, with the belief and knowledge that free, educated adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how their own bodies should be used and what should go into them. 

It's one thing to argue that women should be able to make their own medical decisions whether it comes to abortion or whatever the medical procedure might be and say that women can make these decisions for themselves and we should keep big government out of the hospitals and our bedrooms: but if you really believe big government should be out of the bedroom, then why would you be in favor of sting operations done by law enforcement and breaking into motel rooms to breakup people who are having consensual sex with each other, even if that sex was financially compensated.  

I get the belief that prostitution is a dangerous business and it violates a lot of people's moral and religious values: but should that alone to decide whether people should have to go to jail or not: wouldn't a better approach and more cost-effective approach to law enforcement that instead of arresting people that for engaging in activities that can have negative consequences, that we instead arrest people for hurting innocent people and not what they do to themselves? Which of course would be a limited government approach, but also a liberal one, because it's saying that we don't want or need big government in our bedrooms, or in this case motel rooms.

Prostitution, is not just called the oldest profession in the world, but it actually is with perhaps politics being a close second, but the reason why it is the oldest profession in the world is because people love sex to the point that they won't allow their loneliness stop them from having sex, or perhaps they don't believe they're getting enough from their girlfriend or wife, etc, whatever the reasons. And just because you outlaw something because you don't like it and it can be dangerous, doesn't mean it goes away: all you've done is make it illegal and are now responsible for enforcing your own laws and in this case that means arresting free adults simply for having consensual, but compensated sex. 

And since we know that prostitution has been around as long as humans have been living and it's never going away, wouldn't a better approach be to legalize it and then regulate it and treat it like any other adult entertainment business: require anyone who runs or manages a prostitution business to get license. Require all prostitutes and their clients to get licensed and medically cleared on a regular basis. Tax the business, workers, and clients.  Instead of locking people up simply for engaging in consensual, but compensated sex. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ken White: 'Free Speech Is In Just As Much Danger From Right-Wingers'

Source:Reason Magazine- Attacks against free speech. 

“Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Ken White, attorney and legal blogger at Popehat.com They talked about Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, the dismissal of director James Gunn from the Guardians of the Galaxy series, what limits should be put on employee speech inside and outside the workplace, and his libertarian views on law and society.”

Source:Reason Magazine

I guess where I would disagree is with the title of the Reason piece where they say: “Free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives.” Implying that free speech is in just as much danger from Conservatives, that it is from Liberals. I argue that free speech is not in danger from either of the center’s of American politics the Center-Right and Center Left, Conservatives and Liberals, but that’s in danger from the fringes of American politics.

Nationalist-Tribalist- Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right, who are offended by American culture and would like to see big government come in and restrict what we can see on TV and in pop culture generally. And anyone who opposes Donald Trump and his supporters are traitors ( from their perspective ) and therefor not serving of the same free speech rights as people who support Donald Trump and come from the Christian-Right Nationalist wing in and outside of the Republican Party.

And Socialists in some cases democratic but when you look at groups like ANTIFA and other self-described Communists in America, people who believe that right-wingers don’t have free speech rights in America because what they say is offensive and they simply don’t like what the Right ( especially Far-Right ) has to say and therefor should be shut down and silenced whenever they speak. Whenever one of these right-wingers especially Far-Rightist’s like Ann Coulter tries to give a speech, you’ll see Far-Left groups show up and protest her or someone else on the Far-Right and try to shut her down and shut her up. When one of these people writes a book, they’ll protest bookstores and try to boycott them so the author can’t sell their book.

As an actual Liberal, not a Libertarian, or Civil Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but as an actual real-life Liberal who doesn’t want big government trying to manage our personal and economic affairs for us including what we say to each other and doesn’t want a national babysitter or nanny state, but a real Liberal in the real sense as someone who believe in liberal values like liberal democracy and the individual rights that Liberals actually support, I believe in free speech, period. Whether it comes to pornography and other forms of adult entertainment that the Christian-Right claims to hate and use to view ( pre-Donald Trump ) as a national threat to our security and morality. Or critical or even offensive speech towards minority groups or anyone else in America that the Far-Right hates.

If you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech. Which is sort of like saying if someone believes in God, they believe in God. But my point is that if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech for everyone and not just people that you tend to agree with. Like that Michael Douglas line from The American President, that America is hard and you have to want it bad because it’s going to come after you. Because it’s a society where you have the right to say and believe whatever you want and those rights will be defended to the hilt. But that people who tend disagree with you have the exact same constitutional First Amendment free speech rights as you do. And free speech is better and America is better when we fight for the free speech rights as others the same way that we fight for our own and the people who we tend to agree with. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: Peter Suderman- 'Donald Trump's Vladimir Putin Summit Is Another Reminder He Prefers Dictators To Democratic Leaders'

Source:Reason Magazine- President Trump & President Putin, meeting in Helsinki.

"Among the most consistent characteristics of Donald Trump's worldview is his admiration for dictators, authoritarians, and political strongmen—not in spite of their most thuggish tactics, but because of them.

Trump often appears more comfortable in their company, and with their style of politics, than with the leaders of liberal democracies. This aspect of his personality was on display again today in his joint press conference with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

At the press conference, Trump refused to acknowledge Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. That Russia interfered is now well-documented in both a report by Republican lawmakers and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives. Allowing that Russia interfered in the election is not equivalent to saying that Russia's actions swung the election in favor of Trump, but the president cannot seem to distinguish between the two." 

From Reason Magazine 

"Speaking following their bilateral meeting in Finland, U.S. President Donald Trump said he trusts Vladimir Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election before bringing up Hillary Clinton's missing emails." 

From Global News

Donald Trump, likes to portray himself as this big guy from Queens New York who doesn't take any junk ( to put it lightly ) from anyone and never gets pushed around. He always shows strength and toughness and is never soft. That is the reputation that he wanted to have in his 45 plus years in business and the reputation that he wants to have now as a politician. Except that in his heart he's basically just a bully. Trump, is a guy who'll be as tough as he possibly can against someone he says as a pushover, but if the person has any strength at all, he'll fall back.

Source: The Denver Post- President Trump & President Putin, greeting in Helsinki 

If President Trump, believes he can push someone around and sees that person as weak, he has no problem attacking them verbally, because he doesn't believe that person can defend them self, but if that person fights back like Hillary Clinton or someone else, he backs down. Or if he views someone as tough like a Vladimir Putin, he'll be as nice as he possibly can even going as far as appeasing that person to make them feel as good as possible. He'll make our democratic allies in Canada and Europe, look like the enemy and the authoritarian dictators look like our friends. 

Donald Trump, is the ultimate flatterer to people he views as tough and respects, who'll tell someone who just made them a peanut butter sandwich that is the best sandwich that he's ever eaten or the best meal he's ever had, even if the peanut butter sandwich only came with crackers and perhaps water and not even milk, he'll try to convince the person that he sees as tough as serving them the best meal he's ever had. Forget about those great steak dinner and other meals that he's had in New York or those great quarter pounders that he's had on his own airplane, the peanut butter sandwich is the best thing he's ever eaten, which is what he would want that person to believe. 

Trump, doesn't care if the people he likes and respects are horrible people, just as long as he likes and respects them and he feels they like and respect him. If Donald Trump felt something he liked about Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, or any other mass murderer you want to name in world history, he'll be nice to that person regardless of what that person has done with their life or to other people. It's not about defending or promoting America or even the people who voted for him with Donald Trump, but defending and promoting Donald Trump the man. Or I would argue Donald Trump the lack of a man who doesn't have the guts ( to put it mildly ) to take on evil dictators. Even though he literally is the most powerful man in the world.

30, 40, 50, years ago Far-Leftist Democrats the George McGovern's of the world and even to a certain extent the Ted Kennedy's of the world, even though he moderated his politics at least on national security and foreign policy by the late 1980s or so, were seen as soft and people who appease dictators around the world especially Communists dictators. Before the McGovern's it was the Henry Wallace's of the world who had this reputation and now it would be the Dennis Kucinich's of the world from the last 10-15 years when he was in the House. And for good reasons because they were soft on authoritarians and authoritarianism and in some cases would even deny the obvious brutality that would go on in those countries that would be coming from the government's there.

I only mention this because if any major national Democrat who was looking at running for president or seeking a Democratic leadership post in Congress today the Elizabeth Warren's, Bernie Sanders of the world, said half or even a quarter of the nice things that President Trump has said about President Vladimir Putin, President Kim Jong-Un of the Communist Republic of Korea, President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China, President Rodrigo Duterte of Philippines, they would be seen as American traitors and as treasonous. If Hillary Clinton won the presidential election in 2016 and had said a quarter or half of the nice things that President Trump has said about these dictators, House Republicans would be calling for her impeachment immediately. But for some reason Donald Trump gets a pass from the same people who would be looking to arrest and lockup Democrats for doing the exact same things.

Living in America now is like being on a Twilight Zone episode or just living in The Twilight Zone, where you now have a Republican President who likes dictators and authoritarianism and who takes the word of President Vladimir Putin from the Russian Federation, who is a authoritarian right-wing Nationalist who locks up and even murders journalists and politicians simply for opposing him, over the word of the American intelligence community people he appointed to run those agencies who were confirmed by the U.S. Senate in most cases overwhelmingly. Career intelligence and national security professionals who run those agencies. The truth and evidence be dammed with President Donald Trump, if it doesn't backup up his spin and propaganda and helps him politically. That's the state of the Republican Party and American politics right now. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.