19 votes

Jon Stewart tries to school Judge Napolitano

Denunciation Proclamation (WHOLE SHOW) http://www.thedailyshow.c...


(EXTRA LINK) http://www.rawstory.com/r...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If Lincoln had given two

If Lincoln had given two whits about bringing an end to slavery during the secession crisis, he would've listened to the admonishments of William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists who were PLEASED to see the evil slaveholding South jettison itself from the Union. Had he wished to oppose slavery, all he had to do was let the South go for the time being, work to abolish the Fugitive Slave Act and clause of the Constitution, and watch slavery implode in a very natural and inevitable way as it would do in Brazil by the very same means. PEACEFULLY.

The truth of the matter was that Republicans had no interest in flooding the north with black refugees, i.e. competition with white labor. While it is in fact true that the major driver of secession, at least in popular argument, was a perceived threat to slavery, it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Lincoln's decision to wage war on the South. THAT is the real distinction here that idiots like Stewart and frankly most of the populace ignores.

Cyril's picture

Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.

Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

SteveMT's picture

Attacking the Judge in absentia is really poor form for Stewart.

I'm sure that Judge Nap would love to be a guest on his show, but what he would do to Stewart's erroneous arguments would not be very funny.


Stewart can only form an argument against intellectual superiors when they are not present to rebutt his assinine conjecture. No new tale to tell.

American Jewish Historical Society

“Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently Dominated. This is no less true on the North American mainland…”

Jews dominated the slave trade not only in the American Colonies but all over the New World.

In a major Jewish history of the early Americas called, New World Jewry, 1492-1776, one can find the following passage:

“They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a Royal Monopoly, and the Jews were often Appointed as Agents for the Crown in their sale….

[They] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise….The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.“

Many Jewish writers chronicled the Jewish role in slavery, often Boasting of their Shrewdness in the Business.

“The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices.

On the other hand, there also was No Competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with High Interest Rates….

If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish Holiday, the auction had to be Postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644.

Today, simply by repeating the words of prominent Jewish historians on the Jewish role in slavery, one becomes guilty of “anti-Semitism.” It was only when the public began to learn some of the little-known facts previously reserved for Jewish scholars, that the ADL found it necessary to counter such “anti-Semitic” propaganda.

Guess Jon and his shill forgot about this...........

Professor Tony Martin

gave lectures providing all the 'empirical facts' on Jews being the major slave traders. I wonder what Jonny 'deceiver' Leibowitz has to say about these revelations? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heFUrqcdQuw

The result of the Civil War may have ended 'black slave trade', but essentially, it also made all the American people slaves to the Federal Government.

'History is a set of lies agreed upon' Napoleon Bonaparte

Brittain bought all the slaves and ended slavery without war.

The judge should choose his words more carefully.

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

garbage not worth posting or watching

A farce to attack someone out of context with clips that you can play and denigrate along with laugh box. Just trash from trash people.


Why did a cheap shot on the Judge get 21 thumbs up again?

Just wondering.

because thumbs

Are for (paraphrase) pulling out of one's ears and putting it back up their butt.-- Butthead, speaking to Bevis.

Because people are interested in the discussion.

So by bumping the OP, +21 thumbs (now +17) brings the discussion out. It does not mean that they favour Jon Stewart over Judge Napolitano.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

The bottom line is...

150 years later the white man is paying the blow back for bringing black slaves to this country. Had they been able to look in a crystal ball and seen the future results of their action, I seriously doubt they would have ever done it.

And if some people think the south is so backwards and racist, why do so many blacks and northerners live and move here?

All I know is I'll treat you the way you treat me. I had nothing to do with slavery and wish it never happened.

Which month is Native American History month?

This is Becoming a Trend

I think what you can see in this represents good news.

This is the second time in the last year that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show have gone after the Judge. And many of us also saw him recently go after Peter Schiff as well.

To me this is indicative of some very important changes in the political and media narrative from only a few years ago. It's slowly changed from attacking conservatism to the real perceived threat: libertarianism.

It was only a few years ago that a clip like this wouldn't have even existed due to libertarianism seeming like some fringe goofy thing. However, we are no longer ignored, ridiculed, left in the dark, or laughed at. We are now mainstream, strong, and the only way to deal with that at this point is to attack us.

We are winning and videos like this prove that we are now that we are big enough for entire shows and media networks to launch hit pieces aimed at trying to discredit this philosophy. Keep it up, this should be motivation for us to keep at it relentlessly, no matter what.

Same M.O. That was used on Peter Schiff

Criticize the speaker while he is absent and can't respond.
Funny hahaha

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

And taking him out of

And taking him out of context. They took a few seconds from a 4 hours interview totally out of context. And they refuse to release the full interview.

I did not watch the entire

I did not watch the entire show but the short excerpt wasn't so bad. Jon Stewart is also a contrarian of sorts and the structure of his show is to make fun of right-wing politics. Sort of like having a debate in a very biased format, but I think many in the audience know this and form their own opinions. It's all over-played and it is good to question your own ideas. So apparently Jon is introducing, in his Daily Show way, this topic of conversation. Of course, the spin of the show is very left-leaning, but those leaning that way at least got a plug for a different opinion in a way that was comfortable to them. Those interested in the truth will do more research.

Bad Taste

I would consider this segment in bad taste as presented by Jon Stewart. Twisting what the Judge is saying is one thing, but making light of all of it is another.
Gee, wouldn't the Liberals consider this Racist?

Multi dimensional myth of Lincoln.

1) The war was fought to defend slavery by the South and to end Slavery by the North.
Jon Stewart quotes the secession statement of Mississippi and references two other in support of his view the war was over slavery.

This is out of context. The Southern view was the Union was a compact among equals and that the responsibilities toward each other were in the Constitution. In declaring secession, S.C. and the other states attempted to make the case that the terms of the contract had been broken by other member of the Union and these were irreparable.

Since the terms were broken, the compact was void. The S.C. made the point that 13 states had passed laws nullifying Federal fugitive slave laws. S.C. also noted that slave holders were not afforded equal treatment when it came to territories held by the states in common; Slave owners were prohibited from settling in a large part of the territories. SC in noting the terms of the Union had been broken declared itself free of any obligation to remain a member.

Lincoln, in his first inaugural stated he was not going to do anything to slavery where it existed, but would be against its spread. He stated he did not think he had any power nor did he have the desire to do anything about slavery in the slave states. Collecting the federal duties imposed by the newly passed tariff and retaining control over federal property, however, would be accomplished if it meant invasion and military occupation.

The first seven states seceded because the South no longer could block the old Whig agenda of a central bank, a high protective tariff, and internal improvements when it lost the majority in the Senate. Mississippi notes in its article of secession that the South had lost control of the government.

Lincoln's position was the Union created the states and were permanent members of it. The terms of the constitution, therefore, amounted to nothing. It was until death do us part, no matter what.
His stated objective in going to war was to save the Union, not to end slavery.

2) Taxes had nothing to do with the war.
Jon Stewart states the judge is pulling tax argument out of his butt.

The Morrill tariff had passed the House and was pending in the Senate when the first seven states seceded. It trebled the tax on imports. The cotton states were dependent on international trade and the tax increase burden fell upon them disproportionately.

This was a rerun of the Tariff of Abominations passed in 1828. There was a fight over its constitutionality and SC refused to collect it. President Jackson went to Congress to get the authority to enforce it. SC threatened to secede. Congress passed a compromise tariff bill and the tax gradually dropped over the next 30 years as the North worked to get it raised again. The North's sectional agenda was successfully blocked by the South until 1860.

As stated before, Lincoln promised war to prevent disunion and to collect the new tax.

3) The American Revolution was fought over the principle that all men are created equal.
Jon said so.
Actually, the American Revolution was fought over the principle that people form governments to protect personal rights and liberties; Government derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
That is the principle under which the South seceded.

4) Slavery is wrong.
You got me there, Jon.

5) Lincoln unsuccessfully attempted to establish compensated manumission in the border states, but was rebuffed.

That is true, but the border states considered the proposition unconstitutional and the Union was already at war with itself for a year at that point. Congress did implement compensated manumission in D.C. The government paid two or three times the market price for slaves there in order to free them. Abolitionists, however, were opposed to paying compensation to slaveholders. The goal of punishing the slave owner was more important than freeing the slave in their opinion. On the opposite side of the transaction, since slave holders were paying most of the federal taxes, the U.S. government would be buying their property with the slave holder's money.

In order to end slavery in a generation, one would not need to buy all of the slaves, however. If women of child bearing years and younger were purchased and freed, all of their children would be free since the child of a free woman was automatically free.

Another counter-factual. Assuming the South was allowed to separate, the North would not longer be obligated to return fugitive slaves to their owners. Slaves desiring freedom would no longer have to go to Canada to be free. They could escape to Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, etc. If slaves became too expensive to keep, slavery would have ended. Ezra Pound said that a slave was someone who waited for someone else to come free them. There was no reason to fight a war that killed one person for every three people freed to become a sharecropper. That is not what it was about anyway. Jon Stewart like to play pretend, but slavery is not the reason the South seceded and it is not the reason the North invaded.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson


Great synopsis of a complicated argument.

This is why I hang out with you guys...

...smart, educated arguments concerning a history that has been malleable for decades. Nice post Weirami. Nice.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?


I found the sophistry of the hit piece humorous, but I enjoyed the reasoned analysis of our colleague more.

Point that Should have Been Noted

Lincoln was in favor of keeping the union together not abolishing slavery

If he wanted to eliminate slavery why did he wait three years into the civil war to issue the emancipation proclamation and then have it only apply to the seceding states?

the 13th amendment ended slavery not Lincoln

Lincoln also held some very racist views

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Lincoln's program

Involved compensated manumission that would last several decades and the freedmen would be deported to a colony in Africa, or Central America, or South America.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Why in god's (pick one) name...

...would anyone here ever link to progressive numb-nut central...The Raw Story? As if anything bordering on reality ever crossed through the information barriers that are erected in front of these people's logic board.

Ya gotta like to touch those with the same equipment as you...to swish to the same political dance tunes that are played over there if you want to have any chance of posting without being flamed. And OMG the tune never changes...maybe its sung by Barbara Striesand, Cher, Bette Midler or Lady GaGa...but it's the same "fabulous" tune always.

Just saying...I'm so sick of all of the collectivist oriented gay crap that we are being inundated with, and that echo chamber is a regular BDSM dungeon for those preferring true political discourse without stating what your tongue likes.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?


the comments over at Raw Story are pretty nasty ,and ignorant to boot. It just blows my mind that anyone on the left could consider themselves tolerant, and say things like what I read over there. What a hate -filled bunch.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy


So true. It's incredible, really, that people can really be that evil. Wow.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. - Alexander Fraser Tyler

It is Amazing

How entrenched the myth has grown to be gospel, and their comic presentation works well to quell any feeling of actually wanting to research the issue.

But let not the old-media's spin machine anger or rile your sensibilities, they are dying the way of the dinosaur. Humanity is ready to evolve.

White guilt syndrome

Several decades ago, I remember watching some Jon Stewart stand up with a friend.
I don't remember the routine, but I remember my friend and I looking at each other like: wow, that dude has some serious obsequious, white guilt syndrome.

Since when did newscasters become agenda pushers?

Since when did newscasters become agenda pushers?

Jon Stewart trolling hard. Save the trolling for the internets Jon.


These guys are comedians, not journalists.