Fox News Dementia: Media Is Not As Hard On Obama/Syria As They Were On Bush/Iraq

Posted by on September 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm. 7 Comments :

On Fox News this morning there was a segment debating the media coverage of the “Crisis in Syria” (video below). On any other network this would have been a legitimate subject for debate and a fascinating topic. But leave it to Fox News to broadcast a version of history that makes Snow White’s adventures with seven diminutive forest dwellers look like a PBS documentary.

Fox’s Martha MacCallum opened the segment with a declarative motion for which she provided no factual basis: “Critics are suggesting that the media is not nearly as hard on President Obama about the potential of going into Syria, as they were on President Bush and his war that he fought in Iraq.” The reliance on a ghostly assemblage of unnamed critics is a variant of the “some say” tactic of inventing a premise with which a lazy commentator can project a dishonest argument. But it was just the lead-in that conservative guest Monica Crowley required to say this:

“Most of the media were very skeptical about any kind of military intervention in Iraq. They raised a lot of very legitimate questions. They also pounded President Bush and his team relentlessly in the run-up, during the war and of course even still to this day over that war. […] It was just the fact that it was President Bush prosecuting this war. When you look at the difference between that coverage and the coverage of President Obama…in this run-up to a possible action in Syria, it’s like night and day.”

Fox News
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Indeed, it is like night and day. But not in any way meant by Crowley. Prior to the Iraq war, the media was in virtual unanimity with respect to supporting Bush and his fraudulent escapade. Even the factions of the media that are most often regard as liberal enclaves were banging the drums of war.

Recall that it was the New York Times that employed Judith Miller (now with Fox News) who was instrumental in providing cover for the Bush administration’s pro-war agenda. She was a trusty vessel for the dissemination of propaganda from Bush’s war hawks. She was the reporter most responsible for validating false intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities and ambitions.

If you watched MSNBC at the time, you might recall that the top rated program was hosted by talk show legend Phil Donahue. He was a prominent skeptic of the looming U.S. invasion of Iraq. Consequently, the management of MSNBC viewed him as a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” His show was canceled in February of 2003, shortly before the invasion.

The media presentation of dissent was nearly non-existent. Despite the fact that millions of Americans took to the streets to protest the war, the media declined to cover the demonstrations. Contrast that with the way they slobbered over a few malcontents in a tiny and unpopular political sect known as the Tea Party, and a handful of their hollering rubes at town hall meetings ranting about their opposition to health care.

The characterization of the media as going soft on Obama with regard to Syria is also delusional in the extreme. As expected, Fox News has been harshly critical of Obama no matter what he does. Last week they hammered him for taking a unilateral stance and failing to consult Congress on a possible reprisal for Syria’s chemical weapons deployment. This week they are bashing him for wasting time with congressional consultations and weakening the presidency by seeking them. What’s more, Obama has come in for criticism by pundits on the left like Rachel Maddow and Thom Hartmann and even Jon Stewart.

The right-wing directive to refrain from criticizing a president during international hostilities is apparently only in effect when a Republican is in the White House. Critics of Bush were often called traitors when they expressed their opposition to his policies. But outraged Tea-publicans are now encouraged to disparage the Commander-in-Chief in the most vile terms. Today it is the President who is called a traitor by right-wing protesters who fancy themselves as patriots.

In light of these facts, it is incomprehensible how Crowley can take to the Fox News channel and offer a twisted version of history wherein Obama is getting a pass and Bush suffered outrageous slings and arrows. And what is even more disturbing is that so many Fox News viewers are too dimwitted to separate the Fox fallacy from reality.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fairly Unbalanced: Fox News Politburo Purges Democrats At Senate Hearing On Syria

Posted by on September 3, 2013 at 3:02 pm. 24 Comments :

When President Obama announced that he would seek the opinion of Congress with regard to a military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the hypocrisy of the right immediately rose to the surface of the debate. Many of the same people who had previously condemned the President for not seeking congressional approval, shifted to criticizing him for doing so.

Fox News
For more Fox [distortions of the] News read
Fox Nation vs. Reality.

However, nothing illustrates the transparent intention to oppose Obama regardless of what he does as the coverage of the Senate hearings on Syria that commenced today.

Fox News was generous enough to broadcast the opening statements of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, as well as those of the committee chairman Robert Menendez and ranking GOP member Bob Corker. From there on, however, their coverage had a much more partisan hue.

At about 4:00 pm (ET), Fox cut away from the hearings for an interview with former congressman Ron Paul. Fox then methodically skipped questioning from Democratic senators as if they were mere interruptions. Then, when it was Tea Party darling Marco Rubio’s turn, Fox went back to the live broadcast. But their return was just for Rubio’s opening statement and initial question. They immediately cut away again when Sec. Kerry began his answer. Fox then skipped the next Democratic senator completely, but aired the accusatory inquiries of GOP Sen. Ron Johnson. Guess what happened when Johnson finished his question and the cameras turned to the witness table – live coverage stops. This pattern repeated itself again with Democratic Sen. Coons getting cut, followed by John McCain getting covered in full.

At one point during the coverage, while Fox was airing a series of right-wing analysts bashing Obama, Neil Cavuto promised that as soon as Rand Paul’s turn came around, he would return to the live hearing. It was an explicit admission that Fox had no intention of airing any other part of the hearing that might include Democrats, but would faithfully broadcast their pal Rand Paul. And since Cavuto’s program ended before Paul’s time came, the promise was repeated by Dana Perino in the next Fox program. Lo and behold, Fox refrained from airing anything else from the hearing until Paul, then left the hearing again when Democrat Tim Kaine began his question time.

This couldn’t have been a more blatant demonstration of bias. Democratic senators were virtually ignored. After Republican questions were aired, the answers by the Democratic representatives of the administration’s cabinet were likewise ignored. This was clearly an editorial decision, and it is further evidence that Fox cannot be taken seriously as a news network. They are an openly partisan propaganda outfit for the benefit of the Republican Party. Their mission is to advance a conservative agenda, and that means preventing their already ignorant audience from being exposed to opinions that differ from those of the right-wing commentariat.


The Stupid Burns: Fox News SHOCKED That State Health Care Programs Aren’t Called “ObamaCare”

Posted by on September 2, 2013 at 12:03 pm. 19 Comments :

Ever since Barack Obama was elected President, Fox News has endeavored to sabotage his administration with insults and brazenly dishonest characterizations of his policies. They have referred to him as lazy, ignorant, and ineffectual, while simultaneously portraying him as a persistent, evil, genius, working hard and successfully at destroying the country.

Setting aside the obvious paradox in those contrasting descriptions, one of Fox’s proudest achievements was the labeling of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as “ObamaCare.” It was an attempt to hang the legislation that was a product of a fractured congress around the President’s neck, and was clearly meant derogatorily. The President later adopted the name as an affirmation that he does indeed care about Americans having access to health care. However, now Fox is pretending that “ObamaCare” is some sort of official title, and that avoidance of it is tantamount to a snub.

Fox News
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The absurdity of this criticism is mind-boggling on multiple levels. First of all, the name “ObamaCare” was the creation of the President’s foes and is in no way official. It would be like expecting GOP-controlled states to call their photo-ID laws, the Voter Suppression Act (although that, at least, would be accurate).

Secondly, the fact that states are creating names like MNsure, Vermont Health Connect, California Covered, etc., is evidence that refutes one of the biggest Tea-publican myths about the ACA – that it is a big-government, federally controlled program. In fact, the ACA is just an insurance reform that permits states to create their own system of exchanges that offer health coverage to people who cannot get it from their employer or other private provider.

The ACA’s exchanges are entirely implemented at the state level, which is something that conservatives ought to be celebrating. Instead, they invent lies about Washington intruding on the jurisdiction of the states. But this complaint about how the states name their programs is an ironic example of the right inadvertently admitting their own lies. The states obviously have the right to control their own affairs, and if they choose not to use a name that was invented by anti-health care activists, it is within their power to do so.

It is notable that this epically idiotic article is the product of Fox News, not its lie-riddled affiliate Fox Nation (whose dishonesty is documented in Fox Nation vs. Reality). And the embarrassment of an allegedly serious news operation spewing such nonsense is even more pronounced when Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal is cited as the source for the story. The Journal included a couple of telling examples of insurance consumers. One was a rather moronic Tea-publican who was opposed to his own self-interests:

“The all-Minnesota marketing of the insurance plan didn’t persuade Andrew De Jong, a 25-year-old volunteer in the Minnesota Republican Party’s state-fair booth who said he currently works at a ‘bunch’ of part-time jobs that don’t offer him insurance. He said he has no plans to look for coverage on MNsure because he opposes Obamacare.”

What a brainiac. He would reject even exploring potentially valuable benefits because of his anti-Obama indoctrination. And then there was the liberal who made quite a bit more sense based on actual facts:

“Mr. Schauer, a part-time student, also works part-time as a park-and-water patrolman at the Dakota County Sheriff’s office, where he doesn’t qualify for employer-based health insurance. He said he broke his arm last winter in a snowboarding accident and was motivated to keep coverage. The MNsure calculator estimated he would pay about $65 a month for coverage with tax credits. ‘I figured it would be higher,’ he said.”

The summations by these two prospective health insurance consumers pretty much says it all. Conservatives blindly reject things they’ve been told to reject without any thoughtful consideration. Liberals weigh the facts and arrive at conclusions that best meet their needs.

As for Fox News, they just continue to make up phony issues and disseminate them to their undiscerning audience. Their well established goal is to make ObamaCare fail by discouraging people from enrolling in the exchanges, even if that means they are left unable to seek care if they need it, or driving them into bankruptcy because of their lack of coverage. This was explicitly stated by a Republican quoted in the Wall Street Journal article who said flatly that “We want to keep people out of the exchanges so they will fail.”

Notice that they don’t want to keep people out of the exchanges because they don’t work. They want to keep people out so that the program fails, which, of course, would mean that Americans who choose to participate would be left without options to seek necessary, perhaps life-saving, medical attention. That’s what they must mean by “compassionate conservatism.”


Rush Limbaugh’s Spiritual Guidance On Climate Change Refuted By 200 Evangelical Scientists

Posted by on September 2, 2013 at 9:48 am. 8 Comments :

Last month Rush Limbaugh put on his pastor’s bonnet and proceeded to hand out religious advice to his audience of glassy-eyed dittoheads.

Limbaugh: In my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can’t create.

Rush Limbaugh

How Limbaugh arrives at this spurious conclusion is never clearly explained. Obviously humans control many things that they can’t create. We split atoms, we clear-cut forests, we drive animal species into extinction, we destroy cancer cells, we defy gravity. What would make Limbaugh think that our excessive disbursement of pollutants wouldn’t have an effect on the atmosphere?

Limbaugh also makes a logical leap that a belief in God, which has a faith, rather than intellectual basis, can be a foundation for intellectually refuting science. It’s like saying that if you believe in Santa Claus, then intellectually you can’t believe in Hasbro. But it’s not as if Limbaugh’s ecumenical guidance has ever been held in high esteem. And that is still the case today as a coalition of 200 evangelical scientists smack down Limbaugh’s absurd biblical analysis, saying that they “were appalled at the ignorance behind Rush Limbaugh’s statement but we weren’t surprised.”

“For us, global warming is not a matter of belief – it is about applying our understanding of science to the climate of this planet. The author of Hebrews tells us, ‘faith is … the evidence of things not seen.’ We believe in God through faith. Science, on the other hand, is the evidence of our eyes. We can measure the extent to which natural levels of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere regulate and maintain our climate. We can track how excess heat-trapping gases, beyond what would naturally occur, are being added to the atmosphere every day by human activities. We can calculate how this artificially warms the Earth’s surface, increasing risks of extreme heat, rain, and drought. We can see how these impacts often fall disproportionately on those with the least resources to adapt, the very people we are told to care for by our faith.

“While our expertise allows us to understand the complexity of a changing climate and its causes, it is our faith that compels us to speak out and motivates us to push forward despite the opposition from voices like Rush Limbaugh and gridlock in Washington.”

In July these observant scientists sent a letter to Congress urging them to reduce carbon pollution and adopt policies consistent with God’s instructions to care for his creation. They cite scripture and verse attesting to the fact that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth.

This is something that Limbaugh apparently cannot comprehend in his pedestrian, political, and self-serving exploitation of faith. And it is evidence that anyone who takes Limbaugh’s spiritual advice is as foolish as anyone who takes his political advice. All of it is crafted without facts or reason, specifically for an audience that Limbaugh himself characterizes as so incapable of cogent thinking that they can only repeat his ignorant nit-witticisms.


Not So Breitbart: Obama Golfs While Rome Seeks Congressional Approval

Posted by on September 1, 2013 at 10:06 am. 6 Comments :

Several news agencies reported the fact that, after announcing his decision to have Congress weigh in on the matter of a response to Syria’s chemical weapons attack, President Obama dashed off to get in a few holes of golf. It wasn’t a particularly newsworthy observation considering that the key disclosure in the announcement was that nothing substantive would be happening until Congress returned from vacation next week (which, by the way, none of these news vultures seemed to think was frivolous on the part of congress). It was perhaps a mildly interesting factlet, but hardly the stuff of national emergencies.

Nevertheless, that is precisely how Breitbart News framed the story with a headline blaring “Obama Hits Golf Course After Announcing National Emergency.”

Breitbart Obama Golf
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The numbskull dishonesty of the article begins with the fact that Obama did not announce a national emergency. But it gets worse. BreitBrat Mike Flynn, in a moment of lucid self-awareness, says that “I’m not an expert in foreign policy.” That confession is made more obvious when he continues with his suggestions for what the President might have done instead of golfing.

Flynn: There are probably some Congressional leaders who ought to be briefed. There are likely one or two world leaders who would appreciate a chat about the US plans. No doubt generals in the military would have a thought or two about how things should proceed.

Flynn must have ignored the President’s speech entirely and switched from Honey Boo Boo to Fox News just as the network’s scandalous details about Obama’s golf outing were exposed. Had he listened to the speech he would have known that Obama had spoken to all of the congressional leadership prior to making this announcement. Likewise, he spoke explicitly about his discussions with both the civilian and military national security chiefs before venturing out to the Rose Garden to brief the press and the American people.

Obviously the BreitBrats are so consumed with disparaging Obama that they can’t be bothered with actually paying attention to what he says. And if they were so concerned about presidential golf trips, why didn’t they ever complain about this:

In that video, George W. Bush did not scurry off to a tee time after making remarks about looming terror threats. No, he made them directly from the golf course, and then immediately trivialized the serious nature of his words by comically drawing attention to his alleged athletic prowess.

On the other hand, Obama conducted himself with the dignity that his office implies and the gravity that the circumstances demand. Then he went about his personal business which he is entitled to do. Maybe Flynn should spend more time researching his stories than rerunning videos of Mylie Cyrus twerking.


Fox News/GOP On Syria, Obama: Whatever It Is, We’re Against It

Posted by on August 31, 2013 at 1:27 pm. 8 Comments :

This morning President Obama stepped up to a podium in the White House Rose Garden and announced that he would be doing the responsible thing with regard to Syria’s use of chemical weapons:

“While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

Obama has been harshly criticized by members of both parties for his apparent intention to move forward with a strike on Syria without first getting a specific authorization from Congress. This morning’s announcement came as a surprise to many in the media who had presumed that the President had made up his mind to act unilaterally. Now that he has put the ball in Congress’s court, the same critics on the right are criticizing him for doing precisely what they advised him to do. Immediately following Obama’s address, Fox News turned to their panel of pundits for analysis, and they reacted in a predictably negative fashion, saying the President was weak and reluctant and indecisive. All because he took their advice, and that of many others including, according to the polls, the American people.

Steve Hayes: One can certainly argue the case, and there are plenty of people who believe, both in congress and out, that he should get congressional authorization, but there’s a long history…where presidents have taken it upon themselves as Commander-in-Chief…to take that action, that authority, upon himself and go ahead. […] It’s a good political decision. I’m not so sure it’s a good decision for the Commander-in-Chief.

Charles Krauthammer: This should be done in three days. It isn’t as if people aren’t aware of the arguments. He should go out there, bring them in, and have it done by the end of the week, and the world, I think, will have a little bit higher respect.

James Rosen: Presidents, of course, like to portray themselves as the shapers of history, as shaping the forces around them. In this case, what President Obama has effectively done, and this requires no resort to opinion here – this is a matter of objective fact – is he has placed himself now in the role of witness to power, the power he has now invested in congress.

All of these critics, who essentially agree with Obama’s decision to seek the opinion of congress, still manage to fault him for doing so. So even though he is doing the right thing, he is still wrong because other presidents didn’t bother to ask for congressional approval; or because it will take too long; or because he is abdicating power to another equal branch of government. It’s just as I predicted yesterday when I wrote that conservatives will always find a reason to bash whatever this President does:

They have instituted their typical strategy of being against anything and everything that might emerge from the White House. One faction of the GOP says that if Obama does not strike Syria, then he is weak. Simultaneously, another faction warns that such an attack would be an unconstitutional abuse of power. One side says he must strike because he drew a “red line” last year over chemical weapons. The other side says attacking for that reason would be an act of vanity. One side says he must wait for allies and the United Nations to sanction any attack. The other side says that doing so would be an abdication of our sovereignty.

There is one thing missing from every right-wing criticism: what they would do. I have yet to hear what Ted Cruz’s plan is; or John Boehner’s; or Don Rumsfeld’s; or Rush Limbaugh’s. These people have nothing but complaints and no ideas or solutions. It’s pretty much the same way they deal with health care, immigration reform, the economy, etc. They bitch relentlessly and offer nothing constructive.

They have proven this repeatedly in the past, and today just confirms their commitment to a kneejerk hostility toward Obama. These right-wing pundits could easily be replaced by an automated outrage machine. Just play a statement from Obama, push a button, and get a pre-chewed Tea-publican rant about how awful whatever he said was. We already know what Mitch McConnell thinks; or Donald Trump; or even Sarah Palin who said yesterday, “Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war.” She also said that her solution is to just “let Allah sort it out.” So what do you think she will say now that Obama is seeking congressional approval? My guess is that she will viciously attack him for it. After all, she also said this yesterday:

Sarah Palin
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Wacko Caucus: Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz Ties Syria To ObamaCare

Posted by on August 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm. 8 Comments :

In 2012 the Tea Party lost some of its key figures in congress. Allen West and Joe Walsh were rejected by voters. Michele Bachmann hung on by a thread, but is now so tainted by scandal that she announced her retirement shortly after the election. Folks like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump continue to be little more than comic relief.

Ted Cruz
For more craziness found at Fox Nation, check out the ebook from News Corpse:
Fox Nation vs. Reality.

Consequently, the second string of the Tea Party bench has had to step up their game. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of those vying for the role of Grand Teabagger. His latest attempt to distinguish himself from the pack is a monumentally perverse analysis of the crisis in Syria:

“Fundamentally, actually, these two issues, you look at Syria, you look at Obamacare. They’re tied together. They’re tied together by an arrogance of this administration, that they don’t believe they’re accountable to the American people, and they are going to jam their agenda down the throats of the American people.

And on both of them, the answer is the same as it was on guns; it’s the same as it is on stopping amnesty, which is the American people have to rise up and hold every elected official accountable, Democrat and Republican. Every one of us, including me.”

Syria and ObamaCare are tied together? I wonder why he didn’t also include Benghazi, the IRS, food stamps, and birth certificates. Bachmann would have. Cruz may not be up to this challenge.

The generous portion of ignorance that Cruz is serving up extends beyond the obvious delusional conflation of two completely unrelated issues. His assertion that ObamaCare was jammed down the throats of the American people is easily refuted by the fact that it was passed by a majority of the people’s representatives in both the House and the Senate, signed by the popularly elected President, and affirmed by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

Then Cruz escalates the craziness by attempting to shore up his argument with examples that rip his twisted logic to shreds. On the matter of guns, the American people support the President’s proposal on background checks by an unprecedented 90%. And what Cruz derisively refers to as amnesty, but which is actually a balanced approach to immigration reform, is also favored by a wide majority of Americans.

This is the pathetically low level of discourse that Republicans are engaging in with regard to the complex situation in Syria. They have instituted their typical strategy of being against anything and everything that might emerge from the White House. One faction of the GOP says that if Obama does not strike Syria, then he is weak. Simultaneously, another faction warns that such an attack would be an unconstitutional abuse of power. One side says he must strike because he drew a “red line” last year over chemical weapons. The other side says attacking for that reason would be an act of vanity. One side says he must wait for allies and the United Nations to sanction any attack. The other side says that doing so would be an abdication of our sovereignty.

There is one thing missing from every right-wing criticism: what they would do. I have yet to hear what Ted Cruz’s plan is; or John Boehner’s; or Don Rumsfeld’s; or Rush Limbaugh’s. These people have nothing but complaints and no ideas or solutions. It’s pretty much the same way they deal with health care, immigration reform, the economy, etc. They bitch relentlessly and offer nothing constructive.

For the critics in congress who think the President should not act without congressional approval, if they are so concerned why don’t they just come back to Washington and vote on it? They don’t need Obama to do that. The truth is, they are deathly afraid of actually having to go on the record because they don’t have any solutions and they don’t want to be held accountable regardless of the actions taken or the outcome.

While it may seem that there is no way that Obama can win under these circumstance, I have developed a three-point plan that I believe would satisfy all of his critics in the GOP, and on Fox News:

  1. Fire bibles into Syria and turn Assad and the rest of the country into evangelical fans of the 700 Club.
  2. Authorize a pipeline from Damascus to New Orleans so that Syrian oil could be refined in the U.S. and sold to China.
  3. Approve an arms sales treaty with the new Syria in order to introduce more weapons into the region and create jobs in Kentucky.

Problem solved!

In one respect Cruz might actually be onto something. Syria and ObamaCare are indeed connected in that both concern agendas that Republicans wholeheartedly supported until Obama became involved. ObamaCare, complete with an individual mandate, was originally the brainchild of the uber-rightist Heritage Foundation, now headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint. And the neo-con right has long advocated military engagement with Middle East adversaries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. So if Cruz is looking for dots to connect, I think I found them.


WSJ: Tea Party Leader Admits Political Activities, Proving The IRS Was Right

Posted by on August 29, 2013 at 9:38 am. 9 Comments :

In a fluff piece on the head of the Tea Party Patriots, Jenny Beth Martin, the Wall Street Journal contends that the recent IRS pseudo-scandal has reinvigorated the Tea-publican movement. Never mind that their own poll shows that only 37% – of Republicans – support the Tea Party. The gist of the article’s analysis rests on the improved fundraising they have enjoyed since the GOP has fanned the phony scandal.

Tea Party
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Indeed, the Tea Party Patriots raised more than $20 million last year, which makes their complaint about the IRS scrutiny ring rather hollow. Martin complains that not having tax-exempt status was “a disincentive to some potential donors.” Perhaps a bigger disincentive might be that they spend 85 cents of every dollar raised on additional fundraising. Or maybe donors weren’t impressed with the fact that their candidates (e.g. Akin, Mourdock, Angle, O’Donnell, Paladino, etc.), are mostly losers.

Martin told the WSJ that “the big donors…wouldn’t give to us without our nonprofit status.” She either doesn’t know, or is deliberately lying about, the fact that the IRS permits organizations with pending applications to solicit tax-exempt donations. She also made a remarkable admission that pretty much destroys her entire argument that her operation deserves tax-exempt status at all.

Martin: “It was harassment, pure and simple, to weaken us going into the 2012 election,”

Really? If your concern is that you will be hampered going into an election year, then your activities are unambiguously political and the IRS should immediately deny your application. Martin’s confession that election outcomes are what is driving the alleged harassment is the best argument that the IRS was right to apply stricter scrutiny to her group and others like it.

Not that this would be the first indication that the Tea Party is an overtly political operation and, in fact, nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party. GOP candidate for President, Newt Gingrich called the Tea Party “the militant wing of the Republican Party.” The corrupt Tea Party Express co-hosted a GOP primary debate on CNN. It’s hard to get more political than that.

The WSJ noted the hard times that the Tea Party endured after their brief brush with fame:

By the 2012 election, the tea-party movement was in decline. Its members failed to show up to the polls in sufficient numbers, and many Senate challengers with tea-party backing were defeated. Rep. Michele Bachmann, chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus, barely retained her seat.

When Mrs. Martin toured chapters in California earlier this year, they told her they wanted to drop “tea party” from their names because its brand was tarnished. Mrs. Martin was presiding over a national office full of empty desks and dwindling volunteers and donations—a period she refers to as “frightening” and “disheartening.”.

This is further evidence that their tax-exempt status had nothing to do with their misfortune, because there was no difference in their status in 2012 than in 2010. The dust up over the IRS was itself a purely political tactic, engineered by Rep. Darrell Issa and his GOP cronies in the House of Representatives. And, of course, hyped by their PR division, Fox News. The success of that tactic was heralded by Martin who told the WSJ that “From that moment, the tea party has roared back to life.”

Today the Tea Party is still an unpopular scam devised to advance the interests of the Republican Party and to enrich its principals. It enjoys an outsized measure of influence because GOP leaders in congress are too cowardly to challenge it. But anyone who thinks the Tea Party is a legitimate grassroots operation is being willfully ignorant of the facts – which kind of explains why they still support the Tea Party.


Bill O’Reilly, Wrong Again: On Conservative Invitations To The MLK Event

Posted by on August 28, 2013 at 7:14 pm. 14 Comments :

Modern conservatives are obsessed with demonstrating their admiration for Martin Luther, Jr. now that he has been dead for 45 years and is universally regarded as a civil rights icon. While he was alive they despised him as a rabble-rousing commie and opposed his efforts to integrate schools, workplaces, and other social institutions.

Today they scramble to get invitations to an event commemorating King’s best remembered speech as if they were teenage girls trying to get into a Justin Beiber concert. Never mind that they continue to work furiously against the principles for which King fought, and they endeavor to roll back the clock on everything from voting rights to job opportunities.

Bill O'Reilly

On his program today, Bill O’Reilly joined the rush to pretend that King is a revered figure amongst those on the right. In a dialogue with James Carville, O’Reilly made what he must have thought was a profound observation: “Wasn’t it a little strange that they didn’t have one black conservative or one black Republican? Did their invitations get lost in the mail, or what?”

Carville began his response by noting the appearances by former presidents Carter and Clinton, but was interrupted by O’Reilly snidely remarking that “Isn’t George W. Bush a former president.” Carville replied that he didn’t know whether Bush was invited or not, to which O’Reilly matter-of-factly stated “He wasn’t. No Republicans and no conservatives were invited.”

Not surprisingly, given O’Reilly’s track record for accuracy and honesty, none of that was true. Bush was invited but declined because he is still recuperating from heart surgery. And even Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal reported that the claim that all conservatives were deliberately excluded was false. In fact, GOP House Speaker John Boehner was invited. The GOP majority leader of the House, Eric Cantor, was invited. Both declined. Former NAACP president Julian Bond appeared on MSNBC lamenting that organizers invited “a long roster of Republicans who all said no. They did, however, attend their own Republican-sponsored affair.

If this is evidence of the GOP’s re-dedication to expanding their base and reaching out to minority constituents, they are going to be sorely disappointed come election time. Conservatives didn’t like King fifty years ago, they don’t like his message today, and they snubbed efforts to participate in the tribute. No wonder they need O’Reilly to misrepresent the facts and invent a non-existent controversy, falsely blaming unnamed liberals for excluding them. I wonder what excuses these losers made up for not having been invited to their proms.

O’Reilly is famous for failing to take responsibility for his mistakes and untruths. He never admitted he was wrong when he said there weren’t any homeless veterans. He never “apologized for being an idiot,” as he promised, if ObamaCare was upheld by the Supreme Court. And you can safely expect that he will not take responsibility for these egregiously dishonest remarks either. [Credit where credit’s due: On his program tonight O’Reilly did acknowledge that he was wrong about conservatives not being invited to the MLK event. I guess there’s a first time for everything.]

[Update:] Right-wingers throughout the media have been blasting the MLK event for not inviting conservatives. However, numerous conservatives were invited, but turned it down. Amongst those was Tim Scott, the only current African-American senator (albeit an appointed one), who many pundits held up as an example of the bias shown by the event’s organizers. As it turns out, Scott was also invited and he, too, declined.


Glenn Beck’s Inner Dictator Emerges With Climate Change Denialism And Conspiracy Theories

Posted by on August 27, 2013 at 7:22 pm. 9 Comments :

Anyone who has seen Glenn Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue is familiar with his Messiah complex and his extremist and delusional worldview. Despite his frequent characterizations of President Obama as a tyrannical despot who seeks to enslave all Americans and, indeed, the world, it turns out that Beck himself is the petty dictator who denies those around him the freedom to live as they chose.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook
Glenn Beck

Last week Beck delivered a sermonette (video below) in which he threatened his staff that they would be fired for purchasing compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). He went even further to forbid the purchase of recyclable spoons, cardboard, or pretty much any product that helps to protect the environment.

Beck: I am dead serious. I fire the person that starts to purchase fluorescent light bulbs unless that is the only light bulb for a specific reasons and I want to be CC’ed on what that reason is.

So if you work for Glenn Beck and you just want to buy CFLs because they last longer than conventional bulbs and save money on energy bills, you’re out of luck. If you disagree with his anti-science stance on global warming, you better keep your mouth shut, and restrict your purchases to only the most polluting products. Beck will not permit you to make your own choices and still allow you to keep your job. You must submit to his will, because as long as you work for him, you have no free will of you own.

The reason Beck has laid down this edict is because he views environmental responsibility as tantamount to treason. It is a typically myopic viewpoint that ignores the benefits of energy conservation, and a clean, healthy environment, apart from any consideration of climate change. He is so opposed to anything that smacks of sustainable living that he would prefer poisoning the air and water to taking measures to reduce pollution.

Beck: If you’re doing anything in this company because of global warming, you’re fired. Global warming is a pile of crap. A load of socialist, communist crap.

You see, all of the science professionals and climatologists, 97% of whom agree that the climate is warming and that humans are the cause, are really just commie subversives bent on world domination. The facts, as succinctly put in that liberal, anti-capitalist rag Forbes Magazine, are irrelevant to Beck. And any attempt to think for yourself is also evidence of your betrayal of loyalty to Master Beck. You have been warned.