How many times have you watched a political talk show and just couldn't imagine the nonsense coming out of some liberal pundit's mouth?

On PBS's McLaughlin Group Friday, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said something so absolutely absurd about tax cuts that U.S. News and World Report's Mort Zuckerman did a double facepalm on camera in disbelief (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ELEANOR CLIFT: The capital gains has not always been at 15 percent. You know, when Reagan came to town, the marginal rates were very high, and he got money as a movie actor, so he wanted to bring those down which he did. When the Bushes came into office, they wanted to reduce capital gains because a lot of their money came from investment income. The 15 percent, [Camera pans to Zuckerman doing double facepalm], the 15 percent we arrived at when W. Bush was in office, and it has not always been that low.

Got that? Reagan and Bush only cut taxes to help themselves. It had nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

I agree with Mort.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Remember the good old days when the family members of politicians were considered off-limits?

That of course is never the case for Republicans as HBO's Bill Maher sadly demonstrated on Friday's Real Time when he depicted Newt Gingrich's wife Callista as a Martian (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BILL MAHER: Newt Gingrich, oh my G-d, this guy, he's clinical. I'm going to show you later in the show why he is absolutely clinical. He thinks he's some sort of intergalactic ruler. He said, "By the end of my second term as president, we will have a colony on the moon, and if there's enough people there, it can petition to be the 51st state." We'll call it Lunarchusetts. [Laughter]

Now, I don't know if this explains anything, but take a look at this picture. This is a picture from the movie Mars Attacks. And here's Mrs. Gingrich. [Laughter and applause]

Imagine the outrage if pictures of Michelle Obama were used to similarly mock her.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

In today's "How Can Someone So Dumb Have His Own Nationally Televised Show" segment, HBO's Bill Maher said Friday the federal debt has only increased by $1.5 trillion since Barack Obama took office (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) appearing as a guest said, "There's a fear out among the American people that this five trillion more in debt that we have piled upon their children is going to cause a major dislocation of the economy."

"That's not from Obama," predictably replied Maher. "Five trillion is what Bush did. Obama's 1.5. These are the facts. These are the facts."

How does such a nincompoop get his own national television platform to make such irrefutably false claims?

According to the Treasury Department – information available to anyone via the internet including television anchors, hosts, and their staffs! – the total federal debt was $10.6 trillion when Obama was inaugurated. It is now $15.2 trillion, a $4.6 trillion increase.

This is not up for debate. To quote Maher, these are the facts.

Exactly how is it that people like Maher and virtually everyone on MSNBC can make clearly false statements about the national debt with total impunity?

In what other profession in this country are folks permitted to lie to the public whenever they want?

Tell the Truth, Bill Maher!

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Reason TV's Kennedy on Friday had a delicious smackdown of HBO's Bill Maher and MSNBC's Martin Bashir.

When Maher and Bashir voiced predictable scorn for Governor Jan Brewer pointing a finger at Barack Obama earlier in the week, Real Time panelist Kennedy correctly observed, "If this were a Democratic governor and a Republican president doing the same thing, the entire panel on your show would be like, 'You go girl.' It is so hypocritical" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

The discussion began with Maher showing the now infamous picture of Brewer pointing at Obama.

"I think this is unprecedented," bemoaned the liberal host. "I don't know of any other instance when someone has been this disrespectful to the president."

After the predictable applause from the audience, Bashir opined, "I think that this is the physical embodiment of what has happened over the period of this presidency…What she did was the ultimate outcome of behavior and beliefs that have been allowed to spread and continue…That was profoundly offensive."

When Bashir was done with his absurd characterization of this incident, Kennedy marvelously replied, "If this were a Democratic governor and a Republican president doing the same thing, the entire panel on your show would be like, 'You go girl.' It is so hypocritical."

To strengthen her point, every time former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or former Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said anything negative about George W. Bush when he was president, the press would party like it was 1999.

As such, Kennedy was spot on about the hypocrisy concerning how not just Maher and Bashir but the entire Obama-loving media have covered this incident.

Brava, Kennedy! Brava!

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Friday had some high praise for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' Republican response to Barack Obama's State of the Union address this week along with some advice for presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"Memorize that speech, give it everywhere you go, you’ll be president" (video follows with absolutely no need for commentary):

GORDON PETERSON: What did you think of Mitch Daniels' response?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It was the best response speech I’ve ever heard after State of the Union, which is a hard thing to do after the pomp and the majesty of the President’s speech. And the content of it is quite remarkable. It was the best articulation of the conservative position on the major issues – on reforms, inequality and all that – that anybody has given in this cycle. I mean, you sort of sigh and you wish he were running.

But the advice I’d give to a Mitt Romney: memorize that speech, give it everywhere you go, you’ll be president, because he took on the issues of inequality in a way that nobody else has. He said the way you want to remedy inequality in taxation is not to raise rates, which will hurt the economy. What you want to do is you want to have the rich contribute by eliminating deductions, which increases inefficiency and equity, and also, entitlement reforms so you means test and the rich will get less, which promotes social equity and debt reduction. That is the way you want to do it. Nobody else had stated it. He did it in 30 seconds. It was quite remarkable.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

While most in the Obama-loving media took a predictable victory lap for the President's State of the Union address this week, Politico's Evan Thomas was not impressed.

Appearing on PBS's Inside Washington, Thomas said, "It was a disheartening speech. It was a pathetic speech…He is running on sort of cheap pandering" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: The President lays down the markers for his reelection campaign. We call it the State of the Union address.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZONA): I think it was a great campaign speech, obviously stoking the class warfare issue, but, you know, this may be a little different take than you are getting from others, but I was astounded by his praise for Iraq since Iraq is unraveling.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

PETERSON: Senator John McCain’s take on the State of the Union speech. Evan, you agree with any of that?

EVAN THOMAS, POLITICO: Yeah, I agree with all of it. It was a disheartening speech. It was a pathetic speech, really. I mean, here he’s got, the President of the United States needs a mandate for rebuilding the infrastructure, for getting control of the deficit, for tax reform. So what does he talk about? Raising taxes on millionaires, which I guess you have to do, but it is a tiny problem compared to all the others. And so he is running on sort of cheap pandering. And I’m sure the speech was well written, and it was sort of vaguely moving at the end when he talked about the military, but it was overall a pathetic speech.

What's interesting is that's likely what Americans would have universally heard about this address from the media if Obama were a Republican.

Just another example of what a difference a "D" makes.

Kudos for Thomas for having the nerve to say what most of his colleagues refused to.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

When gas prices get high, politicians love to blame the financial speculators for driving the price up. On Saturday morning, CNN's Josh Levs reported that "we have analysts telling us to get ready for national average around $4.25. That's spring. Summer, that's when it could go higher, $5 could happen in some cities."

What might high gas prices mean for the 2012 campaign? Or how might the fears of high gas prices drive government policy? Will Team Obama really go easy on upsetting Iran to avoid scaring up oil prices?

CHRISTIE PAUL, anchor: Well, get ready to shell out even more at the gas pump. And please don't hurt me because I'm telling you what it says. I'm not doing it on purpose. Gas prices may spike to an all-time high. I know you're cringing. I'm cringing. Analysts say it could top $4 a gallon. That's the average. Josh Levs to talk us through. So what the heck is going on?

JOSH LEVS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Always the bearer of good news. We talked earlier that analysts are saying Chicago and other places could potentially see $5. It's unbelievable what we're talking about. So here's the basic idea. You know what's spiking gas prices? Think of gas prices as like a dartboard. It catches a lot of the stories.

In 2011 we had the highest average for the year ever. Let's break this down, what's happening to your money. This is what determines gas prices here. The biggest factor by far is crude oil, just how much of this dollar goes to crude ferries. Next, you have refining. That's where the oil companies make a lot of their money. And then distribution and marketing, that includes what the gas stations make. Finally, taxes. Those vary by state. That's where the dollar goes now.

What's driving prices up? You've about got a bunch of factors that come together to make that happen. Some, of it is increasing demand from many countries with growing populations and middle class, or where economy has been recovering.

Also instability in oil producing nations places like Libya, Yemen, Syria, that led to less oil production. So you've got supply and demand playing out. There are other values playing out, the value of the dollar and speculation where people are buying up oil futures. Those can affect the prices.

The government says 2012 could be even more eventful. And one big reason there is Iran. Many countries are embargoing its oil. Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. About a fifth of the oil today worldwide goes through there. So if U.S. and other countries keep seeing economic growth, more people driving on the streets, we'll need more gas lines. I'll have more on my Facebook page. So we're talking about a perfect storm that could come together.

PAUL: Just hit us with it. I mean give us a number so we know what to expect. And I know that it's hard to do that because you're prognosticating, but what are you hearing?

LEVS: I will say some analysts are a little more hopeful that prices could actually come down, but when you look at what the national average is expected to be, we have analysts telling us to get ready for national average around $4.25. That's spring. Summer, that's when it could go higher, $5 could happen in some cities.

PAUL: I think I'm staying home this summer.

LEVS: More people might do it.

It should be said that the media have projected about 23 of the last three oil price hikes over the last few years, so add a grain of salt. But even the fear of higher prices causes a political ripple.

Playing off the “best picture” nominated motion picture, The Artist, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live on Tuesday night created its own version of the black and white silent movie – but with a twist, using video clips from NBC’s Republican presidential debate of the night before.

FNC ended Thursday’s Special Report with the pretty inventive video created by Kimmel’s staff. Bret Baier set it up by suggesting the Republican candidates “are trying a new tactic and they’re taking to heart a long ago era, a different kind of movie.”

Previous “Saturday Night Funny Video” which played off of a Republican presidential debate:
“Saturday Night Funny Video: ‘ObamaCare,’ ‘ObamaCare,’ ‘ObamaCare,’ ‘ObamaCare,’ Then Herman Cain…”

Adam Baldwin, the actor who played no-nonsense Reagan-loving spy John Casey on NBC's "Chuck," gave an interview to Kregg Janke at Big Hollywood now that his show just ended with a two-hour season finale.

Baldwin is a favorite of many conservatives on Twitter (at @adamsbaldwin).  He said the dirty little secret about Hollywood is that it's just like the majority of Americans, that they're center-right:

You’ve been working pretty much constantly since 1980 with “My Bodyguard.” Did you ever fear that having political views like yours would hurt your career?

No. I’m fearless for several reasons. One is because, I think, the truth is not something that people can hold against you. And I have a Twitter stream where I consistently ask folks to tell me where I’ve been factually incorrect. And if someone can point that out I’m happy to say “hey, you’re right. I missed that point, I missed that fact” and I’ll correct it. But that’s a rare exception.

Casey defends, protects, serves America, which is what America’s scriptures say, which is protect, secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, that’s what Casey, he is. You know, the folks (on “Chuck”) were accommodating to the fact that I brought a perspective that they necessarily didn’t have in their life, or their creative writing, that could make John Casey more authentic….

But here’s the dirty little secret about Hollywood that I’ve talked about and people don’t talk about enough is that, most people in Hollywood are on the right side of the political spectrum. They just are. Because they live their lives like normal American people do. And the majority of normal Americans are center-right, because they want the government out of their lives, as John Casey does. He wants to protect people’s lives, keep government out of it. But, there’s political correctness that infects Hollywood. Our main enemy, while in the background may be Russia and China, our virulent enemy right now is radical Islam and those people that would support radical Islam to blow up our buildings and kill our people and all that stuff. It’s unfortunate that we aren’t able to address that on a TV show that bows to political correctness. What’s the Jack Bauer show, “24?” I mean, they did it. I wish we’d done more of it.

Since there are so many to the right of center in Hollywood, why do you think it’s so rare to have someone who actually admits it?

Well, there are few people who can.

But why is that?

It’s a combination of reasons. I’ll just speak for myself. I grew up with parents who were teachers. And in my youth and twenties, thirties, before I had kids, when I was still focusing on myself, I bought into what my friends, who I thought were my smart friends, taught me or told me to believe. And that’s very common in Hollywood. The leftist ideology is extremely common in the intellectual circles. And it’s very attractive, it’s seductive, it’s sexy to be smarter than you really are. Now, I didn’t go to college, I didn’t graduate college. So I admired those who did. And I admired those who had information that either seemed collegiate, seemed intellectual, high intellectual purpose, whatever, and I aspired to that. So I succumbed to “this is true. The leftist argument is true” because it was really the only argument I’m hearing. It was the echo chamber effect. The Pauline Kael “I never met anyone who voted for Nixon” in ’72, when he won in a landslide. The Pauline Kael effect. I ran in circles of people who, it didn’t even come up. Hell, I didn’t vote for a Republican president until the second term of Clinton.

What changed?

Well, Clinton. And, I’ve written about this on Big Hollywood, the information that became available in the new media. I’ve written about Rush Limbaugh’s effect, but that’s just one piece of the puzzle. You know, Limbaugh had a broad outreach. Most people in America, most people in Hollywood who are working are center-right. It’s just they’re not vocal about it. The problem is, if you become vocal in a workplace there are people who will defend you and there are people who will not defend you.

So the conservatives, center-right, libertarians, whatever you want tocall it, they’ve just decided to remain silent and work, get their money go home and raise their families, which I admire and I respect. And I’ve talked to lots of guys over the years who just live their lives that way. It’s not arguable.There are people who will bring the argument to work. And I think that’s wrong, left or right. Although, you’re going to get a pass, for the most part, because the bosses, the creative people who are sitting in the chairs hiring you, are going to say “I disagree with you so I don’t want to have to deal with this tension.” But, I don’t argue with these people on the set in any way.

I certainly never would instigate an argument about politics on a TV or movie set. It’s stupid. Unless you can take it off to the side and talk to people and say “yeah, does this make sense or does this not make sense?” Because, why would you want to piss off your boss? But there are people in the business who want to piss off their boss because they’re pissed off. And that’s stupid, in any business. Why would you want to piss off the boss? I’ve met guys in Hollywood, actors and actresses, who have a legitimate point of view, but who push it too hard in the workplace. And that’s a mistake.

That’s my take with these leftists who speak out. Sixty percent of the country is right leaning. Why would you want to risk alienating sixty percent of your potential audience?

Well, that’s a whole other argument. That’s your product, what you’re delivering to the market. John Nolte wrote that great article the Top 10 Ways Hollywood Can Win Its Audience Back. It’s spot on why movies and TV are alienating the audience. John’s article is one of the most profound and true articles about Hollywood that I’ve ever read.

Today is my 18th diaversary. That’s DOC slang for the anniversary of my diagnosis. I used to think 18 years with diabetes sounded like a looooong time. Growing up, most of the people I knew had diabetes for about as…