Fox News Senior Snark-alyst Greg Gutfeld Liberal-Shames Robert Downey, Jr

Psychiatrists may have to come up with a name for the acute psychosis displayed by the lunatics at Fox News who compulsively struggle to turn every news item into an attack on liberals. It doesn’t matter how completely unrelated it is, Fox will spin it into a juvenile insult aimed at whatever lefty (or perceived lefty) they have handy.

Today’s example of this mental illness comes to us from Greg Gutfeld, who devoted his segment on The Five (video below) to an entirely imaginary scenario springing from an incident involving actor Robert Downey, Jr. During a round of promotional interviews for his upcoming movie “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” Downey abruptly walked out after the interviewer repeatedly diverted from the topic of the film promotion to delve into the ancient history of Downey’s troubled past.

Fox News Gutfeld

This episode of Pathological Liberalmania Disorder (PLD) produced a torrent of seizures in Gutfeld that resulted in an uncontrollable period of incoherent articulation. It lasted for several minutes on the air as Gutfeld blamed liberals for Downey’s perfectly rational behavior.

Gutfeld: The questioning veered toward an embarrassing scandal that could threaten Downey’s career. It turns out a few years ago Downey said he wasn’t a liberal. I know. Deep breaths everyone. See, in the world of entertainment saying that you’re not a liberal is like admitting that you molest goats or don’t own a Prius. The host saw what he thought was controversy and went to pick the scab.

The classic symptoms of PLD are present here with Gutfeld imagining that Downey’s career was at risk for something that never actually harmed him or any other actor. The conservative politics of Charlton Heston, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, and many others (see the Friends of Abe), never interfered with their work. But the severity of Gutfeld’s disease was even more apparent as he characterized the reasons for Downey’s reaction. First, here is what took place in the interview:

Interviewer: It was after your incarceration. You said that you can’t go from a $2,000 a night hotel suite to a penitentiary, and understand it, and come out a liberal. I just wonder what you meant by that.

Downey answered that question a bit hesitantly as he wondered what it had to do with the Avengers. But he gave a complete answer saying that he couldn’t really define “liberal” and that his views are always evolving. Then…

Interviewer: You’ve talked in other interviews again about your relationship with your father and the role of all of that. You know, the dark period you went through, taking drugs and drinking, all of that. And I just wondered whether you think you’re free of all of that?

That was when Downey calmly got up and made his way to the door. He was smiling the whole time and even made a little joke as he left the room. However, Gutfeld’s radically distorted perception of this event manifested in this hysterical rant:

Gutfeld: Now most of the reports make it sound like this was about a guy asking about drugs. But it wasn’t. Not at all. The reporter was nailing Downey for not being a total lib.

Gutfeld goes on much longer than that with what he seems to think are witty broadsides at hapless liberals. Clearly he has ventured far from reality. The small portion of the interviewer’s questions that involved Downey’s past comments about liberalism were hardly “nailing” him for anything. The question literally asked “what you meant by that?” That’s a pretty noodley nail. And, in any event, Downey responded to that question. But how Gutfeld can say that the interviewer wasn’t asking about drugs, “not at all,” is mind-boggling. That is specifically what he asked about, and it wasn’t until he did that Downey chose to leave.

This illustrates the disorder that many conservatives suffer from when trying to comprehend liberals, a difficult task for the limited right-wing brain. They have a desperate need to either blame them for things that are plainly unrelated, or to allege that they are attempting to distract from some other imaginary failure. It happened elsewhere this week when Rush Limbaugh suggested that President Obama revealed that a drone attack earlier this year killed an American and an Italian hostage in Pakistan. Limbaugh claimed that it was a ruse to divert the press from the recent book about Hillary Clinton (which was debunked before it was even released).

So what we have here is Gutfeld frantically trying to turn the affair into an attack on liberals, an interpretation that can only exist in a severely diseased mind. These symptoms were also seen in Glenn Beck, who made the very same delusional observations that Gutfeld made about the Downey interview. This suggests that the disease may be contagious, or at least subject to a form of mass hypnosis. The latter theory would be consistent with the Fox News pathology that uses hypnosis via cable TV to manipulate their notoriously dimwitted viewers. And unfortunately, there isn’t a cure for either one of these maladies yet, other than doses of factual information and injections of logic. Sadly, the supply of these treatments is dangerously low in the media world.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Fox News Buries Bad News For Ted Cruz And Marco Rubio On Latino Website

In October of 2010, Fox News launched the Fox News Latino website in order to mitigate the massive disadvantage Republicans faced with Latino voters. Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the nation and their voting power is increasing with each election. So even though the Republican Party has been alienating this constituency with blatantly detrimental policies, Fox News was determined to try to save the GOP from its own prejudices.

The Fox News Latino site has been used as the dumping grounds for stories that Fox News was uncomfortable with presenting to their 99% white audience. So it is common to see Fox sequester stories with ethnic themes on the Latino site so they can avoid offending their much larger audience on the Fox News mothership. News Corpse has documented numerous examples of this, and here are just a few.

In another twist on this journalistic fraud, Fox News published an article that exposed Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as a couple of the Senate’s biggest truants. Despite the fact that they are both in their first terms, they have missed more votes and/or committee hearings than most of their colleagues.

Cruz/Rubio

Just today, Cruz gave a venomous condemnation of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch and the importance of voting against her, then skipped out without voting. [Lynch was confirmed 56 to 43] So it’s interesting that these freshmen senators are currently among the leading candidates for the GOP nomination for president.

Not only are they lacking the most basic qualifications for the job they seek (particularly from the Republican perspective that claimed President Obama was unqualified), but they haven’t even been doing the job that represents their only plausible qualification. What they’ve been doing, of course, is running for president. But maybe they should have acquired some experience first, or at least done some work in their current jobs.

The story revealing the poor attendance records of Cruz and Rubio was prominently displayed on the Fox News Latino web site. However, Fox News didn’t bother to report it either on the air or online. With this strategy Fox can say that they covered the story somewhere, but they don’t wind up giving a great deal of negative exposure that might cause electoral headaches for their Republican pals. Especially those who are favorites of the far-right, Tea Party contingent that makes up most of the Fox audience.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

There is no valid argument for restricting this story to just the Latino website. While Cruz and Rubio obviously share a heritage that is relevant to the site, their position in a national campaign makes this news relevant to the whole nation. Apparently Fox News doesn’t want the nation to know about this, so it’s downgraded to an ethnic niche site that most of their audience will never see.

Imagine if Fox News had only reported stories about Obama in 2008 on a separate African-American website. What Fox is doing is dishonest and racist. It is a disservice to their audience and a corruption of journalism. In other words, it is business as usual at Fox News.

Fox News Is Preparing A Special Report On An Already Debunked Hillary Clinton Book

If you aren’t doing anything this coming Friday, and you have an hour to devote to becoming more ignorant, Fox News is airing special report based on a book that makes wholly unsubstantiated allegations against Hillary Clinton.

Fox News

The book “Clinton Cash” has been getting a great deal of promotion from Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, although it won’t be released for another couple of weeks. The author, Peter Schweizer, is one of the most widely discredited writers working today. His past is replete with criticisms from across the political spectrum and his books have been ridiculed for sloppy investigations and sources who don’t exist.

Schweizer is now the president of the Government Accountability Institute, an organization that is bankrolled by the Koch brothers and was founded by the head of Breitbart News. The GAI has previously embarrassed itself by publishing studies that brazenly misrepresented (or invented) the facts related to their bogus reporting. News Corpse covered one such incident involving an alleged foreign fundraising scandal that supposedly “rocked” the Obama reelection campaign. However, the study didn’t cite a single example of a foreign donation and the authors admitted to Fox’s Steve Doocy that there is no such evidence. Likewise, another GAI study claimed that Obama took more vacation days than average private sector workers. Once again, the study totally distorted the data that actually showed that Obama took far fewer days off.

Now Schweizer has a new book that has been been promoted as a devastating blow to Clinton’s campaign. Rand Paul teased the media by saying that he has “been briefed by Peter Schweizer on this book, and the facts are going to be alarming.” Sean Hannity unleashed a frantic rant saying that “These newest allegations…have the potential in the end to derail this presidential campaign.” These are just two examples of a flood of headlines and hyperbole that say much the thing, that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations will be over just as soon as the book hits the shelves.

There is only one problem with their prognostications of doom. The book is a fraud that proves nothing. The early reports from people who have actually read it indicate that the author fails to connect any of the dots that the wingnut media is hyping. And according to ThinkProgress, who got a copy of the book, even Schweizer admits that he has no proof of anything untoward:

“Schweizer explains he cannot prove the allegations, leaving that up to investigative journalists and possibly law enforcement. ‘Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do,’ he writes. Later, he concludes, ‘We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately provide the links between the money they took and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates.'”

In other words, he’s got nothing but wild accusations and speculation. But it gets even worse. ThinkProgress also found a segment in the book where Schweizer cites a press release as back-up for his charges. Unfortunately for Schweizer, the press release was revealed to be fake back in 2013, a fact that he had plenty of time to discover and avoid putting forth as corroborating evidence.

This is typical of the sloppiness that has dogged his career. The rebuttals to the book on the basis of his dishonesty and lack of professional ethics have already begun to worry his defenders at Fox News. They are resorting to propping him up by asserting that attacks on his credibility are rooted in partisanship, rather than the abundant evidence of his hackery. Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner rushed to his aid saying that “You talk about tearing Schweizer down because he was formerly with Republicans. What about George Stephanopoulos?”

Isn’t it cute how Faulkner tries to slip in the suggestion that Schweizer was “formerly” with Republicans, as if he is no longer a committed right-wing activist, as evidenced by his leading the Koch-funded GAI? But more to the point, what does Stephanopoulos have to do with this? He hasn’t written a book filled with lies aimed at smearing a Republican presidential candidate. No doubt Clinton backers are just as partisan as any other politicos, but the problem with Schweizer isn’t his party affiliation, it’s his credibility and integrity.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Which brings us back to the special on tap for Friday. Fox News will broadcast an hour long program titled “The Tangled Clinton Web” that is anchored by Bret Baier and based on Schweizer’s book. However, the book has already been revealed to be a fraud whose author admits that he doesn’t have the goods on Clinton and whose book is rife with errors and uses hoax press releases as proof. And there are still a couple of days before the special airs for more revelations to be uncovered.

This Fox News special is tainted before it has even aired. Will they include any of the info that has come out about the book in their broadcast? Will they try at all to be fair and balanced? Not likely, given the track record for Fox. And even though they’ve got plenty of lead time to include the truth, Fox has demonstrated that truth is not a part of their criteria for reporting what they mistakenly call news.

So F*cking What? Hillary Clinton Is Rich And It Drives Republicans Nuts

Anyone who thought that Hillary Clinton’s road to the White House was going to be littered with trash from the GOP’s Benghazi obsession or frenzied raving about ghost emails may be disappointed to learn that there appears to be a new scandalette brewing on the right flank. The campaign by Republicans and conservative media to denigrate Clinton seems to be coalescing around a single bit of pre-fab fluff that reveals the flimsy foundation of their strategy.

Clinton Cash

The issue that the right is settling on is Clinton’s net worth and whether her personal wealth conflicts with her campaign theme of being a “champion for the middle-class.” The GOP attack claims that Clinton is a hypocrite for advocating support for everyday Americans when she herself is a member of the one-percent.

Think about that for a minute. This is the same Republican Party that has been the billionaires best friend, pushing through favorable tax schemes, eliminating regulations, and always pressing for an unfettered free-market approach to economic policy. It’s the same Republican Party that praises entrepreneurship and the dignity of compiling vast amounts of personal wealth. However, when it comes to Clinton, there is suddenly an implication by the right that getting rich is bad and if you do so you cannot speak up for hard working citizens who are not as fortunate.

There is no way to respond to that other than by saying “What the fuck are you talking about?” There have many examples of wealthy public servants who genuinely fought for the welfare of the poor and middle classes. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys come to mind without much of a mental struggle. Billionaire investor Warren Buffet has a “rule” named for him that illustrates the unfairness of his tax rate being lower than that of his secretary. There is even a group of “Patriotic Millionaires” who are lobbying for higher taxes on the rich (i.e. themselves).

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to be a bag lady to fight for policies that aid the poor. She doesn’t have to be a Wal-Mart stock clerk to favor raising the minimum wage. She doesn’t have to contract pancreatic cancer to support a health insurance program that makes access to medical care available and affordable.

While the Clintons may be financially blessed today, they were not always so lucky. They both have middle-class roots and they worked their way through college. They never owned their own home until after they left the White House. They may have too many (way too many) associations with Wall Street now, but that was not always the case (and Clinton is moving more toward the Warren Wing of the party every day). So the suggestion that they are unable to relate to common Americans is simply a fabrication.

The problem with the right-wing assault on Clinton is that they simply don’t understand what the issue of income inequality means. They blindly lash out at Clinton for being rich when that isn’t the problem. Nobody cared that Mitt Romney was rich back in 2012. Romney’s problem was that he advocated policies that benefited the rich at the expense of everyone else. He wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He wanted to cut Social Security and other benefits programs. He opposed raising the minimum wage and attacked the unions that fight on behalf of workers. And he famously dismissed the 47% of the nation that he concluded would never support his candidacy, so to hell with them. If Romney were rich, but also compassionate toward those who are not, his wealth would not have been an issue in the campaign.

The Romney problem is one that permeates the entire Republican Party. There are distinct differences between what I called the Koch Republicans and the Soros Democrats:

“For one thing, the Republican rich can usually be found bankrolling people and projects that benefit them personally or professionally. Thus the Kochs’ fixation on opposing unions and denying climate change is closely aligned with their exploitative and polluting business interests. Well-off Dems, on the other hand, commonly finance more philanthropic endeavors (civil rights, environment, aid to the poor) that aim to improve the quality of life without necessarily enriching themselves.

“It is also notable that conservatives advocate for less regulation of money in politics, creating an environment where the rich get ever more power to bend society to their will. Liberals, conversely, spend more of their cash on trying to remove money from politics. As an example, it was conservatives, including the Kochs, who pushed for Citizens United so that they could fund their self-serving projects without restrictions or even identification. But Jonathan Soros, the son of the right’s favorite wealthy liberal punching bag, George Soros, created the Friends of Democracy PAC, a SuperPAC aimed at ending the influence of SuperPACs.”

Similarly, Clinton has already taken a position in favor of a constitutional amendment reversing the abhorrent Citizen’s United ruling by the plutocracy backers on the Supreme Court. She supports unions and progressive taxation and immigration reform and other policies that inure to the benefit of those who are not already awash in the benefits of our capitalistic society. Consequently, her personal wealth cannot be fairly used as a cudgel to bash her as a hypocrite.

Virtually every candidate for president is either a millionaire or otherwise very well off financially. So the only advocates for the middle and lower classes will, by necessity, be comfortable economically. What makes the difference is how they choose to use their position to make the benefits of the American economy accessible to all. Democrats seek broad-based gains that benefit everyone. Republicans seek to feather their own nests and those of their rich pals. That may be part of the reason that history shows that the American economy performs better under Democratic administrations than Republican.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Every Republican candidate currently being speculated upon as candidates for president in 2016 favor the same failed, trickle-down theories of the past. What this nation needs is a champion for the middle-class. Clinton says she wants to be that. At least she’s saying the right things. We’ll have to wait and see if she comes through. And the wingnut politicians and pundits who are embarrassing themselves by proving that they don’t understand these simple concepts need to shut the fuck up.

Porno ‘Patriot’ Hailed By Fox News For Stealing Flag And Suppressing Free Speech

In yet another twisted example of patriotism as defined by Fox News, the All-American channel is singing the praises of a disgraced Air Force veteran who sought to deny protesters their constitutional rights.

Michelle Manhart was once a drill sergeant in the Air Force, which she believes gives her the right to decide who can engage in a public demonstration and how they should behave. She exercised that right at Valdosta State University in Georgia where a group of students were using an American flag in a manner considered disrespectful by Manhart. The flag was on the ground and some of the protesters were walking on it. So Manhart took it upon herself to confront the protesters and assume possession of the flag.

Fox News Manhart

This was an unambiguous case of theft. The flag did not belong to her and she refused to return it upon request. She actually argued on video (below) that the flag “belongs to the entire United States.” The absurdity of that is self-evident. In fact, it violates every principle of private property that conservatives are usually pretending to cherish.

In addition, Manhart was interfering with the rights of the students to express themselves. Their free speech rights, including the treatment of the flag, are protected by the Constitution and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. No matter what your position on flag desecration, the Constitution takes priority. As so often is the case with right-wingers, the hypocrisy of Manhart’s stance is entirely missed by herself and the wingnut media that supports her. Manhart told Fox News that…

“When it comes to the flag, it’s our iconic symbol. It stands for everything that we are. It stands for the freedom to allow those individuals to do what they want to protest or have an organization. So how are you even gonna justify ruining or walking upon something that’s given you the right to do what you’re doing?”

In other words, according to Manhart, the protesters do not have the freedom to do those things that the flag supposedly represents the freedom to do. So enjoy your freedom so long as you don’t actually use it. And if you do try to use it, expect to be stopped by some other citizen who disagrees with you.

Eventually, campus police had to forcibly take the flag from Manhart who refused to follow their order to release it and return it to its proper owners. This outraged Manhart, who whined to Fox News that…

“I have seen that flag on caskets returning home. It was just the thought of those demonstrators standing on someone’s casket. I was so internally frustrated.”

Perhaps she would have been able to gather some sympathy for that argument if not for her own past of disgraceful military conduct. Manhart, it turns out, was discharged from the Air Force after posing for Playboy both in her uniform and out of it. The Air Force advised her that such behavior was a violation of the standards of the service. She was demoted and shortly after left the military to pursue an acting career. Did she consider the poor souls in those caskets when she exploited her body and uniform in a publication that objectifies women?

And if that weren’t bad enough, Manhart also appeared in the nude on other occasions, including in an anti-fur ad for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). I’d give her credit for having compassion for animals, but it might rub some of her right-wing fans the wrong way. But the real problem as regards hypocrisy is that she blatantly desecrated the flag in those photos and others by allowing it to touch the ground, and using it as drapery/clothing.

Despite Manhart’s history of less than honorable service and disrespect for the flag, Fox News and other right-wing media have taken up her cause. The usual suspects including the Daily Caller, Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze, Newsmax, and of course Fox Nation, all published stories exalting the Porno Patriot. The Pope of Fox News, Todd Starnes, hyperbolically declared that “Valdosta State University loves flag burners more so than flag wavers.” However, besides the fact that no one here burned any flags, the university actually loves free speech and obeying the law more so than thieves and censorship.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Fox Nation Flag DesecrationObviously Manhart has a selective sense of outrage with regard to respect for the flag. And on that matter, Manhart is not alone. With relative frequency Fox News has blasted what they called flag desecration by protesters with whom they disagreed. However, they ignore similarly disrespectful behavior when it is done by their rightist heroes. Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, and George Bush have all been caught in public desecrating the flag. Yet Fox News hails such behavior as patriotism when the perpetrators are conservative icons.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Paranoid CREEPY Rules For Anti-Clinton Propaganda

Every presidential candidate has their own way of launching a campaign that seeks to highlight what they regard as their virtues. Ted Cruz did it at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University with an audience of students that were required to attend or pay fines. Rand Paul did it at a hall named for Ayn Rand’s one-percenter hero, John Galt. Marco Rubio chose a location that is known as Miami’s Ellis Island, in case there were some voters who didn’t know that he is Cuban. All three of them made Sean Hannity of Fox News their first stop for an interview after their highly staged announcement speech.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton decided to take a more low key approach that centered on her theme of listening to the voters and becoming the champion of the middle-class. So she posted an introductory video on YouTube and set off on a road trip to Iowa.

Since Fox News regards anything that any Democrat does as not merely wrong, but fundamentally evil, they struggled mightily to come up with a derogatory take on Clinton’s campaign rollout and came up with this:

“Here Are The Paranoid CREEPY Rules Hillary Had For ‘Every Day Americans’ To Meet With Her”

Fox Nation

Oh my, that sounds disturbing. And it would be if any of it were true. What Fox News did on their home page for crotchety thumbsuckers, Fox Nation, is wildly distort an article published by Business Insider (BI) that merely described some of the procedures Clinton’s staff employed to maintain her privacy and that of those with whom she met. The Fox Nation version of events began with a fair and balanced declaration that…

“The results are in, and pretty much everyone agrees that the rollout of Hillary’s presidential campaign has been a disaster.”

Obviously the only people polled for that consensus were Tea Party dimwits and Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads. The Fox Nationalists went on to claim that the BI article was revealing that “the rules have come out for being an ‘every day American’ that got to meet Hillary on the campaign.” However, BI’s reporting was confined to a single meeting that included only Democratic operatives in Iowa. It never mentioned every day Americans, despite the fact that Fox put those words in quotes. So Fox’s characterization was a complete lie.

As for the alleged creepiness of the affair, all of the attendees were not only comfortable with the prerequisites, they wholly approved of them. The rules that Fox disparaged included common precautions to keep the meeting’s details secure, such as not revealing the location until necessary and prohibiting cell phones. None of this bothered anybody. One guest said that “it was a smart thing to do [and] because they did it that way, she was able to sit and have a regular conversation.” Another said that he “appreciated that fact that I could just talk to her and, no offense, not have any of the news media there.”

In addition to the positive response of the meeting’s participants, the restaurant where it took place was likewise pleased and noted that Clinton and her staff were “very pleasant” and “very generous with the tip.” The owner told BI that…

“Clinton’s visit was also a ‘pleasure’ for the restaurant’s staff. Despite the secrecy surrounding Clinton’s stop, the restaurant was not closed to customers while she was there, Bauer said Clinton spent a good deal of time greeting diners and staff.”

Sounds real creepy, doesn’t it? Fox just happened to leave all of that out of their mucked-up version of the story. For the record, the owner was not merely being solicitous to a frontrunner for the presidency in 2016. She also told BI about a previous presidential aspirant who held an event at her restaurant:

“Clinton isn’t the first presidential candidate to visit the Main Street Café. Republican Mitt Romney held a roundtable there in 2012, and Bauer subsequently said she felt he and his entourage treated the staff poorly.”

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Can anything be more creepy than the way that Fox Nation falsifies news stories in order to manipulate their famously ill-informed readers? It truly is cult-like the way they brainwash people in order to insure that nobody wanders off from the approved doctrine. It is also a sad commentary on the state of conservative media that they would resort to this and that their audience is so easily and willingly deceived.

Uh Oh: Jeb Bush Proposes Federally Mandated ‘Death Panels’

At a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire, prospective GOP presidential candidate and successor to the Bush dynasty, Brother Jeb came forward to praise his own actions as Florida governor during a controversy that involved a woman in a persistent vegetative state. Terri Schiavo had suffered irreversible brain-damage and was being kept alive by machines against the wishes of her husband and, according to him, herself.

The torturous spectacle that Bush engineered included multiple court challenges and even signing a law giving him, personally, the right to decide Schiavo’s fate. Somehow that didn’t offend his Republican principles against Big Government. That law was later ruled to be unconstitutional, and after months of emotionally brutal wrangling in the courts and the media, Schiavo was mercifully allowed to die.

Today Bush still thinks he did the right thing and says that “I don’t think I would change anything.” However, he went on to express what he said was his one regret:

“In hindsight, the one thing that I would have loved to have seen was an advance directive where the family would have sorted this out […] I think if we’re going to mandate anything from government, it might be that if you’re going to take Medicare, you also sign up for an advance directive where you talk about this before you’re so disabled.”

Jeb Bush Death Panels

Yikes! What Bush is talking about are the dreaded “Death Panels” that Sarah Palin made famous in her blitheringly stupid criticism of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). Advance Directives are nothing more than voluntary statements that inform doctors and family members as to the wishes of a patient in the event that they are unable to speak for themselves. Palin turned this into a surreal debate over the wholly imaginary prospect of the government deciding who will live or die. For that she was awarded the PolitiFact “Lie of the Year” honors for 2009.

Having been subjected to devastating ridicule did nothing to temper Palin’s dumbfuckery. She continues to believe in the Death Panel myth that she was so instrumental in creating (although she has shifted her ire toward the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a group of health care professionals who insure best practices in medical care and fair pricing, which she now calls Death Panels). When Palin gets wind of Bush’s endorsement of Advanced Directives there is likely to be an earthquake in the Tea Party precincts that still admire her vacuous ramblings.

As for Bush, there is reason to be positive about his support for such a common sense initiative that gives people more control over their own lives. However, he may have taken it a step too far. The suggestion that Advanced Directives be mandatory seems like the sort of government intrusion that Republicans usually rail against. While a Living Will is advisable for most people, forcing them to prepare one when they may not be ready to make all of the profound decisions involved is way too strict a requirement.

What’s more, Bush is only proposing mandated Advance Directives for Medicare recipients. Why is he discriminating against just that sector of the population? Why not make it mandatory for anyone with a health insurance policy, whether public or private? As usual, the Republican solution to any problem is to put the burden on those who are already on society’s lower financial rungs. It’s why they advocate mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, but not for doctors or lawyers or politicians, who hold people’s lives in their hands. It’s why states like Kansas are currently trying to dictate how food stamp recipients can spend their benefits, but there are never similar dictates on how wealthy recipients of government subsidies can spend their benefits.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

If you’re poor in America the government can tell you what to do and how to live. If your rich, anything goes, even if you still get benefits from the government, including tax breaks that contribute to your wealth. That’s the Republican philosophy. And then they will condemn anyone who proposes a policy that permits the government to control any part of a citizen’s life. Unless, of course, it has to with a woman’s control over own body, a patient’s desire for medicinal marijuana, or anyone who wishes to be free from mandated exposure to Christianity.

In short, the GOP Doctrine of Acceptable Hypocrisy requires that any regulation of the rich be condemned as an intolerable intrusion by Big Government. But similar regulations of the poor are necessary controls on irresponsible, and probably criminal, moochers.

Senate GOP Tweet: Lincoln Was Assassinated. America Is Forever Indebted

Anyone who has used social media for twenty minutes has seen unfortunate miscommunications that can result in unintended embarrassment or worse. Sometimes they are caused by typos, sometimes by poorly thought out ideas, and sometimes by unmanaged anger. It remains to be seen what caused this disturbing comment by the official Twitter account of the Senate Republicans:

“150 years ago today the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. America is forever indebted.”

Lincoln Assassinated

Was this simply a cringe-worthy mistake? Did the author of this tweet intend to say that Lincoln’s assassination was something that deserved the gratitude of the American people?

The worst kind of rhetorical mistake someone can make is one that reinforces the most negative impressions that are already present. The Republican Party has long struggled with charges of racism, and for good reason. They have opposed many of the landmark reforms to civil rights laws. They advocate policies on social welfare, taxes, voting, employment, housing, etc., that are invariably detrimental to minorities and other victims of discrimination. They defend outright demonstrations of prejudice by law enforcement and private citizens. They have been caught fraternizing with unsavory characters associated with known hate groups. In many cases they have been discovered to be members of those groups themselves.

Speeches and signs at Tea Party rallies have too often expressed blatantly racist sentiments. Too many Republicans have articulated messages that coincide with segregationists, secessionists, and the neo-confederacy that Lincoln fought to eliminate. It is difficult ignore these instances of GOP support for, or tolerance of, such distasteful opinions. The primary media outlet for the right, Fox News, is rampant with expressions of racism from both on-air personalities and viewers.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

And that is what makes this tweet so troubling. While there is a good chance that it was merely a case of extremely bad grammar, it also represents the true feelings of many people on the far right, many of whom hold positions of influence in politics or the press. It also doesn’t help that the tweet features a statue of Lincoln that has its own controversy. They could have used the famous Lincoln Memorial in the National Mall, but instead chose the Freedman’s Memorial in Lincoln Park that depicts a supplicant black man in a loin cloth and chains kneeling at Lincoln’s feet. That is hardly an image that projects emancipation.

So does this tweet mean that the Senate Republicans are racists? Not by itself. But it does express, whether intended or otherwise, a way of thinking that has dogged the GOP for decades. And even after the posting of this tweet produced hundreds of responses calling attention to the ugly, but obvious, interpretation, it remains online without clarification or apology. That is a message in itself.

Sarah Palin Accuses Hillary Clinton Of Stealing Her Mystery Bus Tour Idea

In the days that have transpired since Hillary Clinton made her official announcement that she is running for president, the media has fallen all over itself trying to get some sort of scoop. Since Clinton opted not to invite the press along on a road trip, they have resorted to frantically trying to chase her down like a pack of paparazzi. It has been an embarrassing series of not particularly newsworthy events culminating in a wholly unremarkable appearance at an Ohio Chipotle franchise that even the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart saw fit to ridicule.

Many conservative commentators pounced on Clinton’s decision to focus on conversations with small groups of voters rather than making a splashy, staged speech before hundreds of predictably cheering supporters (as did Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio). They derided the strategy of taking a van ride across the country as an attempt to dodge the press. For example, Elisabeth Hasselbeck of Fox News complained that “It’s hard to be transparent in that secret-mobile driving around.” There was a general consensus among the rightist pundit posse that Clinton was either afraid or up to no good.

Funny, that isn’t the way they felt about Sarah Palin’s bus tour in 2011 that deliberately kept a secret itinerary to confound the lamestream media. It isn’t how Palin felt about it either. In fact, she is now bragging that the whole concept was her idea. and that Clinton has ripped it off.

Clinton/Palin Bus Tour

This isn’t the first time that Palin was cited as the creator of the political bus tour. When Obama planned a bus campaign trip in 2011, Fox News published an article on their Fox Nation website claiming that he was copying Palin. However, in a bit of epic absurdity, the photo that Fox included was one that showed Obama on a campaign bus three years before Palin got aboard one. That’s right, their own photo, with a dated poster in the bus window, proved they were lying.

So now Palin has posted on her Facebook page for the first time in two weeks. In that time she has neglected to comment on all of the political activity in her party with three presidential candidates declaring. She hasn’t mentioned the U.S./Iran nuclear agreement. She’s made no comment on the police killings of more unarmed African-Americans. She’s had nothing to say about Indiana’s pro-discrimination law. But now she has come out of seclusion to take credit for Clinton’s road trip. Priorities.

In her Facebook message, Palin included a video (below) that showed how the press was confounded by her little bus-capade. She also made a point of misrepresenting her own travels. She claimed it was a national excursion with “reminders of what makes our nation exceptional and free!”

Palin: From way up North in the natural resource-rich state of Alaska down to the inspirational, loud and patriotic Rolling Thunder Rally in DC to a calm clambake on a cool New Hampshire night.

The truth is that Palin’s trip began in Washington, D.C., not Alaska. It lasted for all of six days and never made off of the East coast. When asked why it ended so prematurely, Palin lied again, saying that she had been called back to Alaska for jury duty. That, of course, was not true. She ended up going to Iowa for the premiere of a documentary film about her, “The Undefeated.” The whole bus trip was a fraud that was designed to make people (especially the press) think that she was a potential candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. The reality is that it was set up to keep her name in the news as she promoted the movie that ultimately bombed at the box office.

To make matters worse, she wasn’t even on the bus. She traveled by jet between stops and met the bus at each destination. And as for the appearance at the Rolling Thunder rally, she was not a welcome guest. See this video for a more accurate representation of her attempt to crash the annual charity event for her own selfish benefit.

This is the life of a grifter. Sarah Palin’s whole career is aimed at splashing herself with glory while filling her bank accounts with the cash of rubes. Lucky for her there is an oversupply of them in the Republican/Tea Party that is anxious to throw their money at dimwitted figureheads.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Tea Party Yahoo Takes Steps Toward Impeachment Of President Obama

In the months prior to the 2014 mid-term election, numerous Republican politicians and pundits openly lusted for an opportunity to impeach President Obama for imagined offenses that they could never actually make stick. The absence of evidence, however, did not stop the parade of pitchfork wielding wackos demanding that the popularly elected president be ousted.

Mars Impeaches

And it wasn’t just the usual kooks from the fringe contingent who were flinging charges around. The White House gate-crashers included congressional members like representatives Steven Scalise, Jason Chaffetz, Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann, Darrell Issa, and senators James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, and Tom Coburn. Of course, the kook brigade would not sit on the sidelines either. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and a flurry of Fox News figures like Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, Todd Starnes, Allen West, and Dick Morris were all over this.

Despite this surge of aspiring impeachers, some on the right pretended that there was no such movement. GOP House Speaker John Boehenr said that the whole thing was a scam cooked up by Democrats and Obama, who actually wanted to impeach himself. Fox’s Megyn Kelly struggled to advance the notion that the controversy was a fake by citing a poll that showed that 61% of Americans were opposed to impeachment. Of course they were. But what she declined to reveal was that the same poll showed that 56% of Republicans favored it, along with 68% of Tea Partiers.

Today we have learned that the predictions that Republicans would seek impeachment if they were successful in winning control of the Senate last November, were true. Florida representative Ted Yoho (R-Tea Party) has drafted legislation that purports to define the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as referenced in the constitutional clause granting the power of impeachment to the House of Representatives. His definition just happens to include every political argument against Obama that the right has been making in their impeachment crusade. What a coincidence.

Aside from being an obvious attempt to shape a new law aimed directly at the President, the bill reads like the work of brain-damaged dimwit on acid-laced meth. In his enumeration of “Whereases” he even includes one that obviates the need for the bill at all:

“Whereas impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” has an objective meaning based on the intent of the Constitution’s framers and British impeachment precedents”

If the legal standard already has an objective meaning, then what is the purpose of this bill? That question is answered in the next section of the bill that lists the “impeachable offenses.” To be sure, there are some unsavory crimes listed that ought to result in serious consequences for any executive. However, there is also a familiarity about them that seems to apply to just the complaints that wingnuts have about the current president. And then there are also a couple of political items that could never be adjudicated as impeachable.

However, the problem with this list is not whether the items on it are good or bad. It’s that they are there at all. By composing a list that purports to identify all of the actions that can result in impeachment, there is an infinite number of actions that could not be grounds for impeachment because they aren’t on the list. It’s a rookie legislative mistake.

Richard Nixon could not have been impeached if this list were in effect during his presidency. It also doesn’t provide a path to impeaching a president who embezzles a billion dollars and deposits it in a Swiss bank account. It doesn’t cover a president who breaks the legs of a governor who doesn’t support his agenda. A president could sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to bankroll terrorists in Nicaragua without violating this law (Reagan would have signed it with glee).

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

That’s the problem with explicitly enumerating the actions that would trigger the law. And since “high crimes and misdemeanors” already has an objective meaning, there is no reason to make such a list. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment, make a reasoned argument for them, and pass it on to the senate for trial.

If the House gives this bill serious consideration, they will only be solidifying their reputation as baldly political creatures with contempt for the law. Therefore, don’t be too surprised if they pass it. Their hunger for punishing this President is still palpable. It is a fever that they cannot suppress. And impeachment is clearly still on their diseased minds.