Like News Corpse

On Facebook

In researching the recent controversies over the IRS and its alleged targeting of conservative non-profits, I stumbled across an article I wrote two years ago that unveils yet another blatant hypocrisy from Fox News (as if more were necessary to make the point). The current programming on Fox is dedicated almost non-stop to hammering the Obama administration for the misbehavior of low-level IRS staff. The story has even supplanted their previous pet scandal, Benghazi. And despite making broad accusations of complicity by the President, they have failed to provide even a smidgen of evidence that he had any role in the way that non-profits were selected for review.

That simple fact, however, has not stopped Fox from launching a sustained campaign of outrage aimed at the IRS, which they now regard as a totalitarian agency bent on destroying America and freedom. But it was not always thus. Not too long ago, Fox News was happy to use the IRS as a cudgel against their own perceived enemies. They embarked on mission to wipe the watchdog group Media Matters off the face of the earth. It was a weeks-long effort that included dozens of broadcast segments explicitly recruiting their viewers to file falsified complaints challenging the tax-exempt status of Media Matters. In the process they brought in pundits, and lawyers, and even their in-house “Psycho Analyst” to paint a disparaging portrait of the organization and its founder.

The irony of Fox using the IRS to harass a non-profit organization just because they disagree agree with it will surely be lost on everyone at Fox and everyone who watches it. Below is the article re-posted in full because it is still as relevant today as it was then. Actually more so, with the addition of Fox’s newly minted contempt for the IRS.

Media Matters Has Fox News Scared And Desperate

[July 11, 2011] In the untamed jungle that is cable news, there is a ferocious and predatory beast stalking the terrain. Anyone who has encountered Fox News in the wild can attest to the spine-chilling threat imposed by the pseudo-news network. And now Fox News has the scent of new game.

The Fox News pack is on the prowl for the media watchdog group, Media Matters, against whom they have recently initiated a sustained assault. In the past two weeks they have featured over 30 stories with the express purpose of challenging the group’s right to exist. Fox has assigned network stalwarts like Bill O’Reilly, Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, James Rosen, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, and Bernie Goldberg, to the mission. This is an unprecedented, broadly distributed attack by a major media enterprise against a non-profit group they regard as an adversary.

This latest batch of complaints stem from comments made last March by Media Matters founder, David Brock. He was quoted in Politico as saying that the organization was shifting its focus toward Fox News to one of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage.” Giving Fox the benefit of doubt, one might conclude that it’s only fair that Fox defend itself from such an overt declaration of war. The only thing that might refute that perspective is – reality.

If this is war, it is one wherein Fox is the aggressor. Fox News initiated their attacks long ago with aggressive and false assertions that cast Media Matters as hacks, anti-American, violent, and communist. They alleged that George Soros was pulling their strings long before Soros ever made any contributions the group. Fox stalwarts like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck engaged in rhetoric so hostile that it inspired actual physical attacks against Media Matters and their progressive allies. This video (courtesy of Media Matters) was posted two years ago and illustrates the hostility harbored across the Fox platform long before Brock’s recent comments:

The new and highly coordinated offensive by Fox asserts that Media Matters has violated the terms of their tax-exempt status by setting their sights on Fox. They quote from the IRS rules governing non-profits that state that…

“…501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

On the basis of that criteria, Fox News argues that Media Matters is in violation and should have their tax-exempt status revoked. However, in order for that to be valid, Fox would have to admit that they are a political operation so that attacks on Fox News would qualify as opposition to political campaigns and/or candidates. Without that stipulation there is no violation on the part of Media Matters. So Fox is, in effect, conceding their role as a Republican mouthpiece. Shocking, I know.

Even if Fox were to come out of the propaganda closet, Media Matters would still be in the clear because the non-profit prohibition is explicitly related to campaigns and candidates and to lobbying. Since Media Matters is not directly aiding any political campaign or engaged in lobbying members of congress, there is no violation of their tax-exempt status. Politico cites attorney Marcus Owens, a former director of the Exempt Organization Division of the IRS, as saying that “the law is on Media Matters’ side.”

What makes this even worse is that Fox is not merely rebutting what they regard as negative criticism, they are actively using the tax status allegation as the basis for a campaign to shut Media Matters down. They repeatedly run false, one-sided stories that assert that Media Matters is unlawfully receiving federal subsidies with which to criticize Fox. And they follow up those stories with direct appeals to their viewers to file complaints with the IRS. Fox anchor Steve Doocy has made several announcements on his morning show Fox & Friends like this one:

“Somebody has set up a web site and we have linked it, actually, at FoxNation.com. If you go down about half way down you’ll see that logo. If you want to file a complaint with the IRS against Media Matters because you feel they have gone political, they have abandoned their initial quest, then go to that site and go ahead.”

Not only is that a waste of time, because of the reasons stated above that prove the complaint has no merit, it is also unethical. Has anyone ever heard of a news enterprise directing its viewers to file official complaints against another organization that it regards as an enemy? If NBC were to instruct its viewers to file tax status complaints against the Tea Party because the organization attacks the network, would the folks at Fox News consider that acceptable?

Of course not. Fox would regard that as scandalous, unethical, outside the jurisdiction of a news network, and deliberate harassment. Which is exactly what it is when Fox does it, and it is exactly what Fox is doing. Such complaints, if accepted, would also open the door to challenges against conservative groups like the Media Research Center (operator of NewsBusters) and the Heritage Foundation.

When asked by Politico for a statement, the MRC’s Brent Bozell said only that “Media Matters stands accused of violating its tax-deductible status, and I think that fact speaks for itself.” Since the MRC stands accused of doing precisely the same thing that Media Matters does, that fact speaks for itself as well. Bozell is essentially saying that if Media Matters is guilty, then so is the MRC. And If the MRC is innocent, then so is Media Matters.

The link on Fox Nation that Doocy and others on Fox have referenced is nothing more than an appeal to their readers to file complaints with the IRS. The article’s headline says it all: “Want to File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters? Click Here.” The Fox Nationalists have bumped that story up to the top of their page every day, placing it first among their “New Stories” despite the fact that it is now almost two weeks old.

On one particularly egregious segment, Fox advised their viewers to lie when filling out the IRS complaint form.

The instruction to check the boxes for political campaigning and lobbying activities amounts to falsifying the form because their is no evidence that Media Matters has done any of that. If these complaint forms required the complainant to sign under oath, then Fox would be guilty of suborning perjury. As it is they are merely guilty of attempting to flood the IRS with frivolous and phony paperwork. Which for conservatives seeking to reduce the cost and oversight of government is pretty hypocritical.

Over the weekend, Fox committed fully half of their “News Watch” program to the Media Matters affair. They opened the show by playing a biased story from Fox reporter James Rosen in full. I have never seen that happen on News Watch before. The story included former Bush lawyer, C. Boyden Gray, making this ludicrous assertion:

“When you start to accuse Fox News of being the spokesman for the Republican Party, which is demonstrably false – there’s no basis for that. Brock, Media Matters, makes no effort to substantiate any of that – That’s when it crosses the line.”

Of course, there is ample evidence that Fox News is operating as the public relations arm of the Republican Party. They have had in their employ up to five potential GOP candidates for president. They interview Republican candidates almost exclusively. They have distributed memos instructing their anchors and reporters to use language that parrots Republican talking points. They have even broadcast reports written by the Republican National Committee word-for-word, displaying accompanying graphics that contained the same typos in the original RNC document. That last bit of journalistic cronyism was the work of current Fox News Watch host, Jon Scott. Speaking to Politico, Ari Rabin-Havt, the executive vice president of Media Matters, refuted Gray’s assertions saying…

“Our contention about Fox News’s political operations are supported by the facts and their own actions, especially during the previous few years.”

Media Matters has more than made an effort to substantiate the overtly partisan behavior of Fox. They have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The evidence against Fox is overwhelming. Yet News Watch attempted to divert attention away from such evidence by discussing how often Fox was the target of Media Matters. They displayed a chart showing that Media Matters had done more stories on Fox News than any other news entity. Why would that surprise anyone? If the mission is to document media misinformation, the most frequent offender is going to show up most frequently.

The News Watch panel was composed of four conservative defenders of Fox and one lonely, but earnest, liberal, Jehmu Greene. Jon Scott brought up George Soros three separate times, but were it not for Greene no one would have heard about the uber-conservative Media Research Center. The right has its own army of billionaires (Murdoch, Koch, Scaife, Anschutz, Adelson, etc.) funding their partisan enterprise, but no one other than Greene would discuss it. Even after she brought it up, the other panelists scurried away refusing to hear of it. And it should not go without mentioning that Fox News itself is one of the MRC’s biggest supporters. They regularly feature the MRC’s Brent Bozell and much of their news content comes straight from the MRC. Fox’s former news chief, Brit Hume, thanked the MRC…

“…for the tremendous amount of material that the Media Research Center provided me for so many years when I was anchoring Special Report, I don’t know what we would’ve done without them. It was a daily buffet of material to work from, and we certainly made tremendous use of it.”

As a result of News Watch’s obsession with Media Matters, notable media events of the past week were ignored or abridged. Those events included Michele Bachmann’s entry into the presidential race, Glenn Beck’s final show on Fox, and the President’s contentious news conference. Why would Fox News Watch, a show dedicated to the media, deliberately excise and/or abridge coverage of such significant stories in order expand coverage of a media monitoring organization that most Americans have never heard of? Because Fox News is scared.

On Tuesday, July 5, Fox News elevated their attack to new levels of absurdity. Fox & Friends’ Doocy brought in Glenn Beck’s co-author and “doctor” Keith Ablow for an interview that careened off into the surreal. Ablow pretended that he could psychoanalyze someone whom he has never examined or even met. That is a sign of certain quackery reminiscent of “doctor” Bill Frist’s pathetic attempt to diagnose the terminally ill and vegetative Terri Schiavo. Here is a portion of the exchange:

Steve Doocy: I understand you’ve done a psychological profile of [Media Matters founder] David Brock. What did you find?

Keith Ablow: Well, look, I looked at him from a distance, but you don’t have to look very hard to see into the man’s mind apparently. This is somebody who seemingly has such low self-esteem, Steve, that he’s lurching from one group to another. Whoever will embrace him and reassure him that he’s a decent guy and be his cheerleader in a dramatic way, that’s who he’s gonna be with. [...] You can’t believe this guy because he’s full of self-hatred which he then projects on the world around him in order to get love. So he’s gotta have somebody to hate because he thinks that’s the way, the best way to galvanize the love in his direction. So yes, it’s always about being a hit man, you know, exposing someone. There’s very sexual connotations here too.

That is about as idiotic an appraisal as has ever been articulated aloud. I pity anyone who actually has this fraud as an analyst. Ablow has no basis whatsoever to arrive at his puerile conclusions. He is merely taking obviously hostile swipes at someone he is being paid to disparage. He should have his license revoked. And with all of his brazen, personal animosity he fails to provide a single example of anything that Brock has done that is incorrect or unsubstantiated.

This attack is purely personal. Ablow’s notation of “lurching from one group to another” references the fact that Brock was once a conservative, but is now a liberal. However, Brock was a conservative for many years and, after evolving over time to the left, he has remained liberal for the past decade. That behavior is hardly what any rational person would describe as “lurching.” In fact, it’s seems rather stable. Would Ablow also regard Andrew Breitbart, David Horowitz, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann as lurching, self-haters? They are all former Democrats or liberals.

Ablow neglects to explain what the “sexual connotations” are. He probably only raised that issue to remind his audience that Brock is openly gay, a factor that the Fox audience will surely regard as negative. At one point Ablow tried to inject that Brock’s having been adopted had some part in this absurd analysis, as if adoption is a precursor to the alleged self-hatred Ablow is inventing. And he signed off the segment by telling Doocy, in a declarative tone, that Brock is “A very dangerous man, my friend.”

Ablow is a very disturbed and unprofessional little weasel (I can’t bring myself to call him a man). His medical credibility is identical to the journalistic credibility of Fox News – Zero. No wonder he is their resident psychiatric “expert.” The prerequisite to becoming an expert on Fox News is to demonstrate that you have little knowledge of your professed field, and that you’re willing to use your ignorance to advance the Republican agenda. What’s more, Ablow is in violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics (Section 7.3), which state:

“On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

Ablow’s specific references to Brock as self-hating and dangerous cannot be characterized as “general.” Therefore, Ablow is in violation of professional ethics.

At the risk of being accused of psychoanalyzing Fox News, I must observe that they are obviously scared. They are so afraid of Media Matters that they have become obsessed with destroying it. They are afraid that the successful campaign against Glenn Beck will continue to unravel the Fox News bastion of lies, racism, and partisan propaganda.

Their fear extends to the political candidates Fox promotes. Fox Nation recently posted an article that makes it clear what is keeping them up nights: Media Matters Spawn Trailing G.O.P. With Cameras. That’s right, The all-consuming cause of their dread is the notion that Republican candidates might be recorded by (cue scary music) CAMERAS! That’s because the most frightening prospect facing any Republican is that of being captured actually saying things to citizens. It sends them into seizures of anxiety and wails of gotcha-ism.

While most Americans have probably never heard of Media Matters, Fox is promoting them to the top of the news pile, even above Casey Anthony. They know that any organization that shines the light of truth on Fox News is going to make things difficult for an enterprise like Fox whose mission is to disseminate disinformation and keep viewers ignorant. In the end it is an informed populace that frightens Fox and that is exactly what Media Matters was founded to achieve.

If you haven’t done so already, this would be a good time to join Media Matters. Here is another video documenting the coordinated Fox News attack on Media Matters:

In a discussion about … Oh what the hell, it doesn’t matter what it was about. It always ends the same way with whichever interchangeable right-wing yakker belching out something similar to what Tantaros said: “This is Obama’s America! It’s like the Soviet Union.”

That’s right. America is exactly like the Soviet Union. You almost can’t tell them apart. Remember when Soviet voters elected a Black Russian to the presidency? And if the USSR was known for anything it was the freedom that people like Tantaros have to criticize the government and its leaders. But Tantaros went further to declare that Obama…

“…said he would change the country. He said it. He said it. He said it. And a lot of people voted for him. And if you see any of those people today, do me a favor. Punch them in the face.”

Now that is Tantaros’ America. And it’s nothing at all like the Soviet Union. After all, Obama said he would change the country, which just about every candidate for president says. When was the last time you heard a candidate promise to keep everything exactly as it is right now? Then Tantaros notes that a lot of people voted for Obama. Well, actually a decisive majority. It’s called democracy. So that right there earns them a blow across the chops. How dare they express their popular choice for leadership?

But lest we caught up in rhetorical trivia, let’s examine Tantaros’ remarks from a philosophical perspective. What she is saying is that it is appropriate to physically assault those with whom you have political disagreements. If someone votes for a presidential candidate who you don’t like, punch them in the face. If they dispute your contention that global warming is hoax, kneecap them with a baseball bat. And just to make sure they can’t continue advocating for Marxist welfare like Social Security or Medicare, pour some acid down their throat.

Since Tantaros co-hosts a daily program on Fox News, we can rest assured that she holds these views in the fairest, most balanced way possible. She certainly would not assert that these remedies to political debates be reserved for only one side. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that she would be totally OK with her ideological adversaries employing these same debate tactics on her.

To be perfectly clear, I am not advocating that anyone assault Tantaros or anybody else. But that’s only because I’m not a sanctimonious, rage-aholic a-hole. I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion to her own argument. Thereafter, people can make their own decisions. After all, this is Tantaros’ America.

With regard to recent events concerning Fox News, and its alleged reporter James Rosen, the question as to whether there was a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of the press has roiled the media and spurred condemnation from across the political spectrum. However, no matter what one thinks about the propriety of a government agency examining the phone records of a purported journalist, James Rosen does not deserve to be regarded as one.

In the government’s affidavit supporting their request for a search warrant, a passage in the document reveals that Rosen had stepped far outside the boundaries of journalism. His activities were those of a political operative with a specific agenda that was openly hostile to the official foreign policy of the United States. And Rosen pursued that agenda with an intent to obtain classified materials that he knew was impermissible for him to possess.

Please be sure to like News Corpse on Facebook

Breaking down the pertinent parts of this document, Rosen begins by admitting in an email to his accomplice, State Department analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, that he is not seeking to uncover government corruption or malfeasance. [Note: in these communications Rosen used the alias "Alex," and gave Kim the name "Leo."] Rosen stated plainly that his interest “is breaking news ahead of my competitors.” That is a self-serving, market-driven motivation that removes any of this from comparisons to Watergate or any other whistleblowing type of activity.

The next relevant passage is Rosen’s statement saying “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.” That is an overt solicitation for classified information for which Rosen has no security clearance to observe, and that would (and did) subject Kim to criminal liability for disclosing state secrets. It is one thing for a government insider to voluntarily drop internal documents over the transom, but quite another for a “reporter” to deliberately coax such information from a vulnerable associate. That is more like the behavior of an agent of espionage. Elsewhere in the affidavit, Kim told FBI investigators that Rosen had used flattery and appeals to his vanity in order to elicit the secret data that Rosen later published.

But the most damning affirmation of Rosen’s complicity in unethical, if not unlawful, behavior is this passage wherein he makes a startling confession:

“Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it, or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to this is to EXPOSE the policy…and the only way to that is with authoritative EVIDENCE.”

Rosen’s admission that he was seeking to “force the administration’s hand” in a direction that he believes is not “muddle-headded” is undeniable proof that he was acting as an operative, and not as a journalist. If Rosen thought that the government’s policy was wrong, he could certainly say so without retribution. If he thought that the government was engaged in wrongdoing, he could certainly pursue and disclose evidence of that. But to seduce a government employee to illegally transfer classified documents in order to alter government policy merely because he disagrees with it, and absent any corruption or controversy, is a purely political act.

The facts enumerated in the affidavit clearly reveal improper behavior and intent on Rosen’s part. And it is not difficult to see why the judge, a Reagan appointee, concluded that there was probable cause to grant the request to examine Rosen’s phone records.

As I said at the beginning of this article “No matter what one thinks about the propriety of a government agency examining the phone records of a purported journalist, James Rosen does not deserve to be regarded as one.” And it is not coincidental that Rosen works for Fox News where political advocacy, not journalism, is their core mission.

Fox has been working non-stop since their inception to “force the hand” of government, and not in a good direction. Don’t forget that the CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes, was a political operative for Richard Nixon and other ultra-rightists before he took the reins of a cable news network. And his boss, Rupert Murdoch, has spent decades exerting undue influence over governments around the world. Are the pieces beginning to fit together now? Fox News is not, and never has been, news.

[Update] Through much of this contrived controversy, Fox has maintained that they were shocked to discover that one of their “reporters” had been the subject of an FBI investigation. Now CNN reports that Fox was informed of the subpoena for Rosen’s records three years ago. So pretending to be surprised is just another gimmick to sensationalize their fake reporting.

In the present festival of feasting, many in the press are asking the same question: Have the scandals plaguing the White House created an opportunity for the moribund Tea Party to mount a revival? Take a look at a selection of the headlines:

• Scandals revive Tea Party, threaten Obamacare – Boston Herald
• Tea Party revival – World Magazine
• Will the IRS scandal revive the Tea Party? – The Week Magazine
• IRS scandal revives tea party – CNN
• IRS scandal: Reinvigorated tea party eager to seize moment – Christian Science Monitor
• Tea Party Looks To Gain Momentum In IRS Scandal Aftermath – Huffington Post
• Back from the dead – WorldNetDaily

That last one from WorldNetDaily is particularly notable because it presumes that the Tea Party has been dead, which is not something that WorldNetDaily ordinarily admits.

To answer the burning question of the day, let’s examine how the Tea Party responded to the scandal outbreak. With lightening-fast reflexes, the Tea Party Patriots organized protests across the country to “Rein in the IRS.” And their legions of followers stepped up to speak truth to power. There were 30 of them in Topeka, 70 in Phoenix, 100 in Tampa, 30 in Kansas City, 11 in Tallahassee, 100 in Chicago, 50 in Denver, 6 in Helena, and 50 in San Bernardino where they also spoke Hitlerian rhetoric to power. In the nation’s second biggest city, Los Angeles, the Teabaggers showed up 13 strong.

WOW! If this isn’t a demonstration of just how engaged and relevant the Tea Party is, I don’t know what would be. Clearly they have the political punch of a drunken gerbil. Nevertheless, the media will continue to prop them up as if they were actually influential. The press will ignore factual data like that presented here and fluff the baggers excitedly in the hopes of producing a climax of contrived controversy.

The truly depressing part of this is that the failure to recognize the impotence of the Tea Party will only embolden the minority fringe caucus of the Republicans in congress and encourage them to persist in their obstructionist strategy that has been so hurtful, divisive, and regressive socially and economically.

In a few weeks this will all have been forgotten and, if recent polling is any indicator, the President will be more popular than ever, and the GOP congress will hit new lows. In the meantime, it’s going to be a summer of frustration as little progress is made on the real problems that plague our nation. Too bad.

The core legal concept here is that the source may be a legitimate target of an investigation for violating laws protecting classified data, but that reporters are simply doing their jobs. If a journalist is not suspected of having broken a law, he cannot be subject to invasive inquiries. Consequently, it may be entirely permissible to subpoena the phone records of a leaker, but not the reporter to whom he leaked.

Given the still incomplete record of what occurred with the Associated Press and Fox News, the Justice Department appears to have overstepped its bounds in examining the phone records of journalists. If it turns out that the journalists acted unlawfully (i.e. solicited classified data in exchange for cash or other favors), that would implicate the reporter as a co-conspirator, but as yet there is no evidence of that. And absent any such exception, the DOJ needs to come clean, acknowledge its mistakes, reaffirm its commitment to the law, and punish those responsible for the gross prosecutorial abuse.

That said, it is utterly ridiculous for Fox News to display such furious indignation over these events considering their past with regard to far worse behavior. The Washington Post, CBS News, and pretty much any other news organization can and should pursue this story aggressively, but Fox really needs to shut the fuck up.

Picture this: Fox News is going nuts about a couple of dozen reporters having their phone records examined by law enforcement officials seeking information about someone suspected of leaking national security secrets. Bear in mind that there was no wiretapping, listening in, or recording of any conversations, just a listing of the calling histories. And even that was not done until after having received permission from a judge. Over that Fox is shouting “SCANDAL” at the top of their lungs.

But there is nary a peep about other Rupert Murdoch-owned entities hacking into the phones, email, and computers of hundreds of private citizens, royals, celebrities, politicians, and even a kidnapped schoolgirl who later turned up dead. That unambiguously criminal activity resulted in dozens of arrests and the shuttering of the highest circulation newspaper in England. Fox not only soft-peddled this historically scandalous story, they openly suppressed it on their own air:

Fox News has been devoting unprecedented airtime to the DOJ story, while engaging in wild and baseless speculation to associate the White House with allegedly improper activities. But their feverish obsession with tarnishing the President and others makes a mockery of journalistic ethics. When Fox devotes equal time to the still ongoing scandal in their own house, then they might be taken seriously when they report on the bad behavior of others.

This is a rather monumental upheaval for the judiciary, because Fox has criticized hundreds of judges. In fact, they have made it a cornerstone of their editorial philosophy that the judiciary (along with the media, academia, and most other social institutions) is hopelessly liberal. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly frequently sends his ambush unit (producer Jesse Watters) out to harass judges when a legal outcome does not meet with his approval, whether or not the judge had anything to do with it. And now Fox is providing cover for their own reporter by alleging some vague conspiracy between a judge and the Department of Justice.

So F**king What?

The first thing that makes this item so supremely asinine is the fact that the judge upon whom Fox is casting aspersions was appointed to the Federal District Court by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by a senate run by a Republican majority.

The source for Fox’s piece also has a less than credible reputation. The story was posted on the web site of the notorious political clown, Herman Cain. It addressed a ruling by Judge Alan Kay that permitted detainees at Guantanamo Bay to meet with their lawyers, something the Bush administration was improperly prohibiting. Author Dan Calabrese wrote that…

“Fox News quoted extensively on the air from Kay’s ruling in the case of Salim Muhood Adem v. George W. Bush. I have not seen the segment, but knowing Fox News – particularly on issues like Gitmo in the post-9/11 years – I think it’s a pretty safe guess that they weren’t quoting Kay’s ruling as a means of praising his decision.”

Seriously? Calabrese is admitting that he has no idea whether or not Fox actually criticized Kay because he hasn’t seen any criticism himself. He is simply assuming that Fox was critical because it would be consistent with their well-known political leanings. Acknowledging Fox’s biases may be the only honest part of Calabrese’s article. However, it does not satisfy any standard of proof that Fox slighted Kay, sparking a grudge that he has allegedly held for seven years so far.

To suggest that an independent jurist who was put on the bench by Reagan has joined a conspiracy with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to criminally prosecute a Fox News hack is further evidence that Fox’s paranoia gauge has flipped completely off the scale. Their best efforts to topple Obama have collapsed into a pile of rotting rubble, while Obama’s approval ratings have risen in the midst of supposed scandals. That paradox is driving the right wild and causing them to concoct ever more fantastical fables.

So soon after an election that was an epic embarrassment to Republicans, they seem to have learned nothing and are continuing to live in a world of rightist delusion. No one but reality-challenged disciples of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones will believe the outrageously nonsensical tripe that Fox is spewing. And even while some of the more moderate wingers are cautioning their comrades to lay off the crazy juice, Fox continues to pour it on by the gallon. If this is their strategy for political success in 2014 or 2016, all I can say is “Bring it on.”

The article by Matthew Boyle (known for his discredited smears that falsely alleged improprieties by Sen. Bob Menendez), took aim at an attorney who represented the United Church of Christ (UCC) when it was being investigated by the IRS for potential violations of its tax-exempt status. The inquiry was prompted by a speech made by then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

The Fox Nationalists plastered a lurid headline atop their posting that said “Chief IRS Counsel Bailed Jeremiah Wright’s Church Out of IRS Probe in 2008.” The only thing wrong with that headline is…well, everything. First of all, the attorney, William Wilkins, did not work for the IRS in any capacity at the time. He was in private practice with a firm that specialized in tax matters. Secondly, his client was the UCC, not Rev. Wright’s Trinity United, which was just an affiliate of the denomination. Thirdly, he had no power to bail anyone out. What he did was represent them in the investigation, which he did in a manner that produced a favorable outcome.

This was a thoroughly hollow assault that was contrived by unethical partisans to hurt the President. But how can you blame them? This barrel of lies touched on so many of the phony components of their smear machine, it was just too good to pass up. After all, it had Obama, the IRS, and an old fave, Rev. Wright.

What both the BreitBrats and the Fox Nationalists missed in their haste to bash Obama was the fact that this investigation was another example of the Bush administration deploying the IRS to harass organizations they perceived as unfriendly (i.e. Greenpeace, NAACP, et al). In this case it was a liberal church that invited a Democratic presidential candidate to deliver a speech on faith.

So not only has the right-wing media cabal missed their target by a mile, they inadvertently weakened their case that the IRS is a rogue outfit that exclusively harasses conservatives. Nice work, kiddies.

The BreitBrat producers framed this marketing scam as “offering fans of our movie the chance to ‘sponsor’ an intellectually malnourished member of the mainstream establishment.” What a magnanimous offer that doesn’t in any way rip off dimwits for the enrichment of shlock peddlers. It was such a great idea that I borrowed it myself to move copies of my book, Fox Nation vs. Reality.

Today, however, the BreitBrats have taken another step over the line that divides foolishness from insanity. They put out a press release bragging about what a monstrous success their little failure is: “Andrew Breitbart Biodoc Opens At #3; Digital Sales Strong As Movie Opens Across Multiple Platforms.”

The index to which these geniuses are referring is the one that Amazon posts with every product in their store. It is a volatile gauge that changes by the minute and only measures sales on Amazon. Hating Breitbart may have been at #3 at some point, but it was short-lived and probably the result of a spike from the producers buying copies themselves. At this writing it sits at #13.

For comparison, my book is presently at #9 in Amazon’s Political Advocacy category. But a few days ago it was at #2. Tomorrow it could be #22 or #4, all depending on how it sells in relation to how everything else on Amazon sells.

The press release goes on to celebrate what they call “a national theatrical release,” with numbers they boast are “pleasing.” But there is no evidence that such a release has occurred. There are no independent box office tallies. And they don’t bother to list any venues or ticket sales data in the release. I’m afraid that, like their Amazon hype, this is all in their heads. Or perhaps they just put together a nationwide exhibition of the film in the living rooms of Tea Partiers where they could include a scrumptious pot luck feast. Then, they could Tupperware-style push more copies of the DVD to gullible viewers.

Most producers sitting on a major flop would try not to attract more attention to their failure. But it seems somehow appropriate that the producers of a film about a loudmouth propagandist would continue shouting even after their project has hit the bottom of the barrel.

Most of the reports were rife with falsehoods and errors. Most striking was the story aired by ABC’s Jonathan Karl who blatantly lied about his “exclusive” access to internal administration emails but, as it turned out, he not only did not have any emails, he unethically regurgitated false and damaging misrepresentations fed to him by Republicans in congress. And while he issued a vague note of regret for the phony attributions, he has yet to admit that his sources were partisans with an axe to grind. [NOTE: David Shuster appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources this morning and smacked down GOP apologist Jennifer Rubin in grand fashion on this subject. Video below].

Ever since these stories emerged, Republicans have been spinning with feverish glee in the expectation that they might bring down this president that they hate with such vicious intensity. And as an added bonus, refocusing attention on manufactured melodramas allows them to avoid doing any actual work for the people they supposedly represent. The GOP House has voted 38 times to repeal ObamaCare, but not once for a jobs bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the witch hunt. Obama’s approval rating has risen 6 points since March in a new CNN poll. And majorities say that they believe Obama’s statements about Benghazi and the IRS. So despite the aggravated bluster of the right, Obama’s fortunes have been faring well.

So how does Fox News react to a scenario wherein they have flung virtually all of the feces they could gather and none if it sticks to their target? Being Fox News they simply get dirtier and more insane as their desperation builds.

Each of the headlines in these stories were built from scratch to disparage the President. And each has not even a smidgen of truth.

The item asserting that Obama “Admits He’s A Socialist,” was wrenched from an article in the New York Times where the author offered his opinion that Obama longed to “go Bulworth.” That was a reference to the Warren Beatty movie where he played a senator who abandoned the pretenses of politicking and went out to say what he really thought, including some positive remarks about socialism. However, the author of the Times article never mentioned the socialism part of the story. He only meant to refer to the straight-talk that Beatty embraced. And more importantly, Obama never mentioned any of it. It was all the musings of the Times author. So there was no “admission” by Obama by any stretch of the imagination.

In the article from the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel presents her theory that Obama was secretly signalling to people way down the ladder from the White House, his desire that they target conservative non-profits seeking tax-exempt status. The method he used was to say things that he believed. How insidious. Strassel’s idiotic theory would mean that anything any public figure says is evidence of complicity if some other people he’s never met do something illegal or unethical connected to that opinion. For instance, George W. Bush would be guilty of homicide because he publicly stated his opinion that abortion is murder and then George Tiller, a doctor who provides abortions, was fatally shot at his church. See how easy that was?

In the other two headlines Fox simply plucked the word “irrelevant” out of comments made by White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer without providing any context. In the first one Pfeiffer was asked about whether any laws were broken in the IRS affair. His answer merely reflected the fact that he was not a lawyer, but that regardless of whether laws were broken, the behavior was inexcusable. He was not saying that “the law” was irrelevant, but that it wasn’t relevant to the determination that what happened was wrong even if not unlawful.

Finally, Pfeiffer’s remarks about the relevance of Obama’s whereabouts during the Benghazi attack came in the course of Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace repeatedly asking him where Obama was that night. Wallace seemed obsessed with which particular rooms in the White House the President might have visited. Eventually Pfeiffer responded by bluntly saying “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night. That’s a largely irrelevant fact.” Which is unarguably true. Wallace was wandering down some weird and delusional path that had no bearing on anything. But Fox spun Pfeiffer’s response to suggest that it meant something broader with regard to Obama’s overall attention to the unfolding crisis.

This is the kind of nuttiness that ensues when liars become increasingly desperate as they see their lies falling flat. They get more and more surreal as they strain to have an effect. And when the effect turns out to be the opposite of what they hoped (i.e. Obama’s approval rising), they keep walking down that dead-end path, accelerating their pace, until it leads to a cliff. In the next few days and weeks we will see if Fox and the GOP are crazy enough to keep walking right over the edge. This should be fun.

And now for something completely different: Shuster Mauls Rubin…

In an item about a study on “the Ancestral Logic of Politics,” the Fox Nationalists slapped on a this headline: “Strong Men Lean Conservative,” In doing so they have made their best case yet for the right-wing sloganeering to “Take our country back – to the Stone Age.”

The study referenced in the article examined and compared data on bicep size, socioeconomic status, and support for economic redistribution. What the researchers concluded was that upper-body strength “may reflect psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments.”

In other words, physically domineering specimens were more inclined to take what they want and refuse to share. Sounds pretty much like every Randian Teabagger in the GOP (Greedy One Percent). It is a perfect description of the rightist ideology of self-interest above all. It’s what shapes the Republican agenda of opposing regulations that protect people, as well as taxes used to provide food, housing, and other social services to the sick, the elderly, and the poor (known to right-wingers as “the weak”).

The Fox interpretation of this study is typically shallow in that they regard physical strength in the same way that our Neanderthal ancestors did – as a class-based asset. The more powerful members of the community were once elevated to leadership posts by virtue of their ability to bully everybody else. And that’s pretty much the way Tea-publicans want it to be today, although they have modified the definition of strength to include financial muscle. Hence their reverence for (and subservience to) wealthy upper-crusters like the Koch brothers.

It’s rather amusing that Fox chose to illustrate their posting with body-builder-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger – a pot-smoking, pro-choice, steroidal, Hollywood mogul, environmentalist, who married a Kennedy and then cheated on her (fathering a child with his Guatemalan maid). What better role model for the egocentric selfishness of modern conservatism that is so smitten with swaggering blowhards and chicken-hawks?

Be Sure To Like News Corpse On Facebook: