Category Archives: Humor

Humor pieces are just funny bits I’ve made and want to share with the world. They are usually political, but not always.

Jon “Ace” Stewart

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

Remember last week when I told you about the unanimous decision to gut the STOCK Act that prevented lawmakers from abusing their access to insider information on the financial sector as its regulators and investigators for personal financial gain, also known as insider trading? And how Congress and the President crammed the proposition through in under a week? It took literally only ten seconds to get through the Senate, and Obama signed it into law late on a Friday in hopes the media circuit will miss it over the usual weekend buzz and talk about the upcoming vote on “gun control,” or lack thereof?

Well, the good news for Obama is 99% of the mainstream media did miss it. The bad news for Obama is that the 1% that did catch it was Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

Have at ‘em, Jon:

Part 2:

Oh Jon Stewart… you make everything better.

Seriously though, this gives me hope. Outside of FOX, whose hosts and hostesses act as one hive-mind collective force, the only individual member of the mainstream media that has ever had an effect on national politics is Jon Stewart. Back in late 2010, the Democrats introduced a bill that would provide health care to all emergency responders that saved lives on September 11th, but contracted health issues due to their acts of heroism (repertory problems, cancer, and other problems associated with working on ground zero for days and weeks). Republican Senators filibustered it and the bill died. Seriously. Why Democrats didn’t shame Republicans more on that is a mystery, especially considering why Republicans filibustered it. They gave the flimsy excuse that the spending for the program wasn’t off-set, which is still no reason to not do a bill of this importance in the first place, but what makes it even more intolerable is that the spending for the bill was off-set. The problem? It was paid for by closing some tax loopholes for foreign companies. Not American “job creator” companies; foreign companies, which is remarkable in and of itself that the government is spending taxpayer dollars on tax loopholes for foreign companies in the first place, but that’s another issue for another day.

So, quite literally, the Republicans filibustered a bill created by Democrats to provide health care to the emergency responders of 9/11 for the ailments they contracted while saving lives after the worst terrorist attack in US history because tax loopholes for foreign corporations were more important to their party.

Jon Stewart wasn’t having any of that. He dedicated an entire show to this bill, shining a light on it, and exposing the Republicans for the abominable, immoral act they had just committed. He was so effective he even got FOX News to turn to his side and attack Republican Senators for filibustering the bill.

I went and dug up this old video about what and how this exactly transpired if you don’t believe me. Watch it here:

Apparently one man can make a difference, and that one man is Jon Stewart. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t harbor any false hopes that this particular bill is salvageable. So much damage has been dealt to the STOCK act that it’s largely useless at limiting the corruption of our government by the banks and financial sector, but just knowing that Jon Stewart is watching Congress this closely, to notice something this minor and covered-up by the current establishment, gives me hope for future bills and legislation that attempts to stop corruption. And who knows, if he drives this one bill home hard enough, he may manage the impossible yet again and save it, though I don’t think it will be any time soon.

It’s good to know we’ve got at least one guy that big and that deep in the mainstream media on our side. Jon Stewart; America’s ace in the hole.

Tenthers

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

(Ron Paul Quote)
If you recall, when we first started talking about federal gun control, many states attempted to pass legislation saying that federal law was not enforceable in their state, which is obvious nonsense. Some states even went as far as to say that any federal law enforcement attempts would be met with force from local and state law enforcement. We kind of fought a civil war over this guys; let it go. The idea that such legislation passed by the states has any force of law or even makes a shred of sense is the key element of the “tenther” movement, about which I’ve recently come to a realization. The movement’s name originates from the tenth amendment to the constitution.

Tenth Amendment Text: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

A “tenther” is someone who interprets the 10th amendment to the constitution in such a way that they believe it to be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any laws or take any action that conflict with any law or legal precedent of any state.

So basically, they believe every law and constitutional amendment passed by the federal government since the 10th amendment is unconstitutional, or at least highly suspect of unconstitutionality. This is obviously preposterous. Tenthers don’t seem to have any knowledge of the constitution, because if they did they would know the very first lines of the constitution justify a vast majority of the laws enacted by the federal government.

Constitution Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

(Fun fact: The original constitution spelled “defense” as “defence.”)

For their interpretation of the tenth amendment to work, tenthers must read the preamble thusly:

Constitution Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

At the same time, many tenthers are also outspoken gun advocates that often cite the second amendment as an “end-all argument” that makes any sort of gun control regulation unconstitutional.

Second Amendment Text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Tenthers and others who use this argument against gun control seem to just ignore the opening lines of this amendment and only focus on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” even though that phrase, for one, is entirely dependent upon the existence of militia, and two, specifically allows for regulation of said militia and those with access to firearms. So tenthers read this.

Second Amendment Text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Given that tenthers only seem to read a small portion of the constitution’s actual text, I think I’ve finally discovered from where they’re getting their legal precedent to argue against every single piece of legislation ever passed or currently being deliberated by the federal government; the first amendment, which reads

First Amendment Text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But given how often they just ignore significant chunks of text in the constitution and its amendments, it’s no shock that tenthers seem to read the first amendment as:

First Amendment Text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the very end of the longest-winded political joke I’ve ever written. I felt the message within it was worth it. Allow me to make it up to you with this.

Clinton Takes an Early Lead… Way Early

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

Recent polling in Texas and Kentucky are showing that Hillary Clinton is ahead of virtually all Republican presidential possibilities in 2016. Honestly, I don’t care for this story, as funny as it may be. It’s way too soon to start polling for 2016, and the story I found didn’t even list the other candidates to whom she was compared. The following is how I figure it went down.

I obviously exaggerate, but I can’t help but wonder if these factors, combined with name recognition and media exposure (poor Rand Paul…), are what’s actually driving it. I mean, seriously, I don’t even know if I believe this poll at all. Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky, and Hillary Clinton is polling ahead of him there? Really? That’s like asking all Oklahomans who they’d rather vote for President, Hillary Clinton or Jim Inhofe, and Hillary winning that poll. They may not have included Rand Paul on their list of potential GOP candidates I suppose, but a lot of my concerns over the poll’s reliability remain, plus the possibility of it being incomplete if it only listed one or two candidates.

But, I will add this.