ISIS Or GOP? Sarah Palin’s Description Of Terrorists Fits Both

The rapidly wilting tundra weed we know as Sarah Palin came out of her ice cave today to remind us all of why we have forgotten her. But she wasn’t stepping forward to condemn the horrific murders by a Christian terrorist at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility. Like many of her political persuasion, she is ignoring that it even happened. Instead, she took to Facebook to attack President Obama’s execution of the war against ISIS. She begins her tirade saying that…

“We desperately need a Commander-in-Chief for such a time as this, not a divisive ‘Community Organizer’ with a blowhorn, stirring domestic aggravation. Americans should be able to live with no fear of any outmanned, outsmarted, outgunned punkass-evil, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant death cult trying to infiltrate innocent populations.”

Forgive us if we’re not quite certain to whom she is referring. The first group that comes to mind when described as an “outgunned punkass-evil, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant death cult,” is the Republican Party. Chances are that is not what Palin had in mind. But the GOP is a party that worships the NRA, is fiercely opposed to women’s issues, regards gay rights as blasphemy, and relentlessly lobbies for unending war. So Palin should have been more specific if she wanted people to reach a different conclusion. And speaking of “a blowhorn, stirring domestic aggravation,” has she looked in a mirror lately?

Sarah Palin

In her Facebook rant, Palin asserts that the only thing necessary to defeat ISIS is the “the political will from on high with the command to ‘fire!'” She is apparently ignorant of the fact that under Obama’s direction the command to “fire” has been issued over 8,000 times. That’s how many U.S. bombing missions have been conducted against ISIS in the past couple of years. As a result, many of their leaders have been killed and their hold on territory has receded. In addition, other nations such as England, Germany, France, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, even Iran, have been battling ISIS. So Palin’s attempt to minimize the difficulty of the task is plainly ill-informed. Furthermore, the successes achieved thus far are not diminshed by the fact that small cells of ISIS sympathizers have carried out random acts of terrorism. That’s one of the harsh realities of modern warfare.

Palin went on to say that “Muslim extremists crave an oncoming clash of civilizations.” That’s true. And it’s one of the arguments for refusing to surrender the high ground to them on that matter by referring to them as “Islamic” terrorists. ISIS is desperate to be viewed as the legitimate voice of Islam. However, most Muslims reject that claim and oppose the designation. In fact, the only parties insisting that ISIS be called “Islamic” terrorists are ISIS, Republicans, and Fox News.

Finally, Palin takes a dig at Seth Meyers, who interviewed her last week (video below). During the segment he effectively shamed her for being so insensitive to the plight of the Syrian refugees who are seeking asylum in the U.S. and elsewhere. She charged that he needs to “recover” from his “gullibility.” But it was Palin who demonstrated that she is incapable of coherent analysis and didn’t even know the process in place for vetting refugees before admitting them. Now she is demeaning Meyers and anyone else for “believing the Feds have an 18-24 month bureaucratic vetting process that successfully filters out the bad guys.” Of course, there have been nearly 785,000 refugees admitted into the U.S. since 2001 and not a single American has been harmed because of it.

Since Palin was so inept at responding to Meyers’ questions on the show, she is now resorting to a second try via an editorial on the widely disrespected, wingnut and birther website, Breitbart News. But she still fails to make any sense and her reputation as a blithering idiot is only enhanced. She should have quit while she was a[air]head.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

His Majesty Donald Trump Uses Threats To Gain Superiority Over Politics And The Press

The media is pouncing on Donald Trump today for his blatantly false claims to have seen “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. What he says he personally witnessed never actually happened and PolitiFact, among other fact checkers, rated it a Pants on Fire lie. He is also taking heat for re-tweeting a racist graphic of homicide statistics that were completely made up (probably by a neo-Nazi). And then there’s the episode at his rally where he encouraged his supporters to beat up a protester, later saying that he deserved it.

Donald Trump

However, there was another newsmaking event that took place that isn’t getting much play from the media. Trump’s bullying of the press has devolved into severely oppressive tactics that reflect his tyrannical tendencies. He and his campaign aides have taken steps to punish, muzzle, and otherwise suppress the First Amendment rights of the reporters covering his campaign. It has gotten so bad that media organizations that normally compete with one another are meeting to discuss the matter and to formulate a response. The Washington Post reports that…

“According to people at multiple networks, senior managers from the five leading TV news networks — ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox and NBC News — will discuss their response in an effort to push back against what they deem harsh and restrictive behavior by Trump’s managers, including his top aide, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.”

The abuses being suffered by the press include the Trump campaign threatening to pull the press credentials of reporters who dare to leave the “pen” provided for them by Trump’s handlers. His people even explicitly threaten to “blacklist” disobedient reporters. By disobedient they mean those who seek to interview people attending Trump’s events or to cover protests. In other words, those who are doing their jobs as reporters. In one case Lewandowski told another campaign staffer “Hey: Tell Noah [Gray of CNN], get back in the pen or he’s f—ing blacklisted.” WaPo further reported that…

“The campaign has also declined to give credentials to reporters from news organizations it has deemed unfriendly. The list includes BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, Fusion, Univision and the Des Moines Register.”

This is unprecedented in a democracy that reveres freedom of the press. But worse, it is a preview of the sort of ham-handed censorship that a wannabe dictator like Trump would employ were he to hold any position of power. It has to have gotten pretty bad for competing media enterprises to come together in search of a solution. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the press to challenge Trump. They are more interested in the potential ratings they think he will draw than in their journalistic integrity.

It’s fascinating that his supporters, ostensibly conservatives who claim to favor small government and personal freedom, are still drawn to this budding despot who seeks absolute power and is proposing growing government in the most intrusive way: more federal agents to monitor churches, more security forces on the border, more surveillance of citizens and registries to track them. And his supporters are the same people who were so rapt with an irrational fear of President Obama’s imaginary “czars.”

In a separate example of the intransigent totalitarianism of Donald Trump, he is holding the Republican Party hostage with threats to bolt and run as an independent if they don’t squelch a growing contingent of critics who are uniting to produce and distribute anti-Trump ads. [This isn’t the first time he has threatened to break his pledge of party loyalty]. It’s called politics and every politician is aware of how it works. But for Trump, the notion that His Majesty would be the target of an attack is unthinkable. Reuters reports that…

“Donald Trump’s presidential campaign warned the Republican Party on Tuesday about donors pooling funds for attack ads, saying Republicans must treat him fairly if they want to keep him from launching an independent bid.

“Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told CNN that if Republican donors backing different presidential candidates come together for an anti-Trump advertising campaign, it would be a ‘bad, bad decision.’ […] ‘If they treat him fairly, he will honor the pledge because he’s an honorable guy. If they break that agreement with him, as they say ‘woe be on them,’ Cohen told CNN.”

“Woe be on them?” Trump is literally going Medieval on the RNC. Of course, the Republican Party has no control over Super PACs that are independent and free to pursue their own political missions. In Trump’s mind there is an overarching authority on whom he can force his will under threat of annihilation to any peasant who dares to defy his omnipotence.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The question is, will the RNC capitulate to Trump and forever be his bitch? Will the media surrender and allow Trump to dictate the terms of their coverage? Trump is an aspiring tyrant and the time to squash his power-mad dreams is now. Unfortunately, his party and the press may be too impotent to stand up for their own interests, and for those of democracy and America. If they had any integrity or guts the RNC would tell him to stop whining, honor his pledge, or take a flying leap, and the press would tell him go to hell and then cover him the way they would any other candidate. As it looks now, they are just preparing to embarrass themselves and let an ignorant, loudmouth, with delusions of grandeur run all over them.

Donald Trump: The Republican Party Is My Bitch – Threatens Independent Run

Observers of Donald Trump’s bizarre campaign for the Republican nomination for president have seen in just a few months the ugliness that he can present as he seeks to attract voters by appealing to their fear, hatred, and ignorance. And now they can also see how worthless his word is as he throws a temper tantrum over being attacked by his political rivals.

Donald Trump GOP

When Trump announced his candidacy in June, there was speculation that he would not remain a Republican candidate if he faltered in the campaign or failed to get the nomination. That controversy caused the GOP to insist that all candidates sign a “loyalty pledge” if they wanted to participate in party sanctioned debates or even get on the primary ballot in some states. The pledge required the candidate’s to…

“…affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination of any other party.”

It’s difficult understand how Trump could endorse other Republicans that he has already disparaged as weak, incompetent, corrupt, ugly losers, but under pressure from the party, Trump signed the pledge and tweeted how proud he was of the commitment. He further stated that “I will be totally pledging my allegiance to the Republican Party and the conservative principles for which it stands,” and that “I see no circumstances under which I would tear up that pledge.”

That was on September 3, just two and a half months ago. Today, however, Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on This Week and was asked whether a new ad by his opponents, characterizing him as dangerously inexperienced, might cause him to change his mind. Stephanopoulos also quoted from a Wall Street Journal article that described the Republican establishment as “increasingly alarmed by the enduring strength of Donald Trump’s presidential bid,” and said that they were “ratcheting up efforts to knock him out of the race.” So when Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he still intended to honor his pledge, he responded:

“I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly. When I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is a level playing field.”

Trump’s idea of fair treatment is when everybody stoops to kiss his wrinkled butt. Consequently, any pledges he makes are subject to cancellation at will. His stance now is to wait and see. That flip-flop demonstrates that he is someone who is not to be trusted, even after he has signed a written commitment. He played Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, for access to the debates that have raised his profile, and now he is threatening to ditch the party to boost his own super-sized ego.

The prospect of Trump mounting a third-party run would be great news for Democrats. But the really interesting part of this is how the GOP will react to Trump’s deceit. Will they bend over with lips puckered and beg him not to torpedo their 2016 presidential hopes? If so, that would make them look pretty impotent going into the general election. But do they have the guts to stand up to him and refuse to be bullied by a painfully stupid trust fund baby whose sense of entitlement could blot out the sun?

Trump has already cowed two titans of the media. He made bitches of both Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes of Fox News, who scampered away in fear of offending The Donald. They let him make asses of them in order to preserve what they believed to be a ratings bonanza, but will prove to be a short-term blip. Will the Republican Party now follow in their baby steps and allow Trump to stomp all over them?

If the GOP/RNC has any guts they will demand that Trump reiterate his promise to endorse the Republican nominee and forswear a third-party run. They should force him to make a public proclamation of loyalty or face being booted from any future debates or, where allowed, access to state ballots as a Republican candidate.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The likelihood of that, however, is low. Republicans have not been known for their commitment to principle. And they have already demonstrated that they fear Trump more than they love their party or their country. Why else would they stand with him when he has insulted millions of minority voters, women, and seniors? And his recent fear mongering over refugees literally devolved into fascistic ranting that has no place in a free America. So It’s your move Republicans. What will you do with your treacherous Trump now that he is wiping your face in it?

Donald Trump Has Gone Full Nazi – And If The GOP Doesn’t Repudiate It They Own It

If the Republican Party is ever going to wake up and shut down this misanthropic racist it had better be now. Donald Trump’s latest hateful howling has crossed a line of indecency that is impossible to ignore. And Godwin be damned, he is articulating Nazi rhetoric on a scale not seen since the originals.

Donald Trump

Just yesterday Trump told Yahoo News that he would support the development of databases and other systems to track and monitor people in the United States on the basis of their religion. He did not rule out forcing Muslims to have identifying papers or badges. Perhaps he would make them wear a star and crescent in the manner that Hitler’s Nazis made Jews wear the Star of David. From Yahoo…

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

This grotesque policy position fits nicely with his prior statement that he believes it may be necessary to close mosques in America. He said that “there’s absolutely no choice” because “some really bad things are happening.” Apparently one of the “really bad things” isn’t the assault on our Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion. But that’s not all, Trump also told Yahoo News that…

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

So “security is going to rule.” And I’ll bet the trains will run on time. And speaking of trains, this is the same man who wants to round up 11,000,000 Latinos for mass deportation. How he proposes to do that is a mystery, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it involved boxcars and concentration camps. He approvingly cited the 1950’s Operation Wetback as a model for his plan. That operation resulted in dozens of deaths and was abandoned as a failure that violated humane standards.

In the short history of Trump’s campaign he has gotten away with saying repulsive things and demonstrating overtly bigoted behavior. Even when he disparaged solidly conservative principles like the military sacrifices of John McCain, or making a mockery of the practice of Christianity, his supporters remained faithful. And despite all of that, he still clings to the top of the polls in the Republican presidential primary. There has been an astonishing and troubling loyalty by Republicans who seem unfazed no matter how disgusting or ignorant he gets. And it isn’t just his supporters. Other GOP voters, pundits, and candidates, are reluctant to take him on.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

If that continues it will be impossible for the GOP to separate themselves from his repugnant views. And the same goes for Fox News, who flagrantly promote Trump’s campaign. They are already tied to him on most other issues with which they agree completely. But if they don’t want to forever be associated with the outright appeal to the policies of the Nazis, they need to renounce him and cease supporting him. If his polling isn’t hurt by this we’ll know for sure that a significant chunk of the Republican Party is cool with fascism.

Sarah Palin And GOP Favor Gun Rights For Terrorists To Open Carry, Just Like Jesus Said

It’s the most wonderful time of the year. The time when the War on Christmas warms the cockles (whatever they are) of American patriots as they prepare to celebrate the release of another Sarah Palin book: Sweet Freedom: A Devotional. Palin’s latest butchering of the English language “invites you to draw strength and inspiration from 260 meditations based on guiding Biblical verses.”

Sarah Palin

One of the inspirational verses in the book is Luke 22:36, which says “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” And from that Palin has constructed an interpretation that strains the bounds of reason. She spoke with Tom Sullivan of Fox News Radio and delivered her warped analysis of the scripture:

“In the New Testament, Luke:22. We’re talking about gun control. Jesus, I swear he was a proponent of open carry. Because he told his disciples, he said ‘You better arm yourselves. You better protect the innocent. You don’t rely on the authorities. You don’t rely on others peoples.’ He said ‘You carry your sword.’ He told his disciples ‘Before we go on our journey, if you have a cloak, if you have your purse, OK, go get ’em. But if you don’t have a sword with you…’ – which was their arms back then – ‘…then you sell your cloak and you go buy a sword. And you get out there and you defend the innocent and yourself. Let’s go.’ He was all for self-defense and the Second Amendment.”

Really? Then why on the next morning did he tell his disciples to cease any defense of him, saying that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Biblical scholars read this verse as Jesus merely advising the disciples to be prepared with necessary tools for the tasks of survival (i.e. hunting, and cutting cloth or building materials). That explains why after he told them to buy swords he replied that “It’s enough,” when they responded saying that they had two already. Certainly two swords would not have been enough to fight the officers who would come to arrest Jesus. But they would be plenty as parts of a tool collection.

What’s more, nowhere in the verse does it say that Jesus advocated using swords, or any weaponry, to “defend the innocent and yourself.” To the contrary, he preached against violence and favored passive resistance as in “turn the other cheek.” Palin’s interpretation sounds like Jesus was assembling an early incarnation of The Avengers to suit up and take on the evildoers of Jerusalem.

In an oddly significant juxtaposition to Palin’s mangling of the Bible, Fox News reported yesterday that terrorists have had nearly unfettered access to guns in America. Gretchen Carlson’s story (video below) quoted a study by the Government Accountability Office on the ability of people on the Terrorist Watch List to legally purchase guns:

“People on the Terrorist Watch List here in the U.S. – Who knew they were still legally able to buy guns? Look at this data from the Government Accountability Office going back to 2004. Suspected terrorists made more than 2,200 attempts to buy guns from U.S. dealers. More than 2,000 of them, or 91% were successful.”

Who knew? Well, actually many people knew. Even Fox News knew and reported on it many times. This has been an issue for gun safety advocates for years. There have been several attempts, going back to at least 2007, during the Bush administration, to pass legislation to close what has been called “The Terror Gap,” but they have always been met with fierce opposition from the NRA and Republicans in Congress.

One of those Republicans who has opposed the legislation is Texas representative Tony Dale. Ironically, Dale is now citing the ease with which guns are available as a reason to deny entry into the U.S., and Texas, by Syrian refugees. Dale is worried that among them will be terrorists who will be able to purchase guns thanks to the legislation that he voted for. And another opponent of closing the Terror Gap was the late Adam Gadahn (aka Azzam the American), an Al Qaeda operative who issued a directive to his comrades saying that…

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

It’s rather strange that Carlson would be so surprised that this is occurring when it is something that has received so much attention in the past. And her editorial take on the subject seems to be aligned with the gun safety advocates who are pushing for restrictions on gun purchases by those on the watch list. That would put her at odds with the rest of the Fox News team, the GOP, the NRA, and Sarah Palin. Which means, of course, that she is at odds with Jesus the Avenger. Uh oh.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The Republican Crisis Recycling Center: Syrian Refugee Edition

In what is being described as the worst refugee crisis since World War II, the plight of displaced Syrians continues to be a daunting humanitarian problem that is putting pressure on nations around the world to find a compassionate solution.

The United States is among those nations, but it is battling opposition from within. Not surprisingly, it is the Republicans and other conservative politicians and pundits who are adamantly against allowing Syrian refugees safe harbor in America. So far, more than half of the state governors are on record as opposing resettlement of Syrians in their states, and all but one of them are Republicans. [Legal note: These constitutional fetishists are unaware that they do not have the authority to dictate immigration policy, which rests with the federal government]

The GOP’s arguments against welcoming these refugees are consistently based on the fear that terrorists will clandestinely slip in among the legitimate migrants. While there is very little evidence of that occurring, it remains the favored excuse of the refugee opponents. The typical refrain goes something like this:

  • We must immediately prohibit those people from entering the United States.
  • Those being let in will include terrorists.
  • If our leaders won’t protect us they should resign.
  • It’s not our problem. Let others in their own region deal with it.
  • We can’t be humanitarians. We have to protect ourselves first.

Oh, sorry. Those were actually the reasons that Republican politicians and pundits opposed letting people from West Africa into the country last year during the Ebola outbreak. The degree of hysteria expressed by the wingnut contingency at that time was deafening. For their trouble they earned PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award for 2014. It was a well-deserved tribute to their deranged insistence that Americans were going to be infected by the millions, and those who were fortunate enough to avoid the disease would be slaughtered by terrorists. Some of these fear mongers, like Glenn Beck and Fox News’ Keith Ablow, accused Obama of deliberately orchestrating this mass extinction of the U.S. population.

And while we’re on the subject, those were also the very same excuses the rightists gave for opposing the resettlement of Latino children. When thousands of kids were stranded in the Southwest they were treated like a plague and accused of being disease carriers, or having associations with drug traffickers or terrorists.

Let’s just call it the “Republican Crisis Recycling Center” where they repurpose their standard complaints to fit whatever outrage they are currently trying to push.

Republican Crisis Recycling

This might be a good time to point out there were never any outbreaks of Ebola in the U.S., nor did any of the kids who were eventually placed in foster homes blow up any pizza parlors. The irrational hysteria of the rightist fear merchants never materialized as they predicted (hoped?). And all of the available evidence points to the same results if we welcome the Syrian refugees in to America. There are, in fact, already some 2,000 Syrian refugees who have resettled here since 2011, and in four years they have done nothing but try to put their tattered lives back together.

Donald Trump was among those who exploited the Ebola crisis and charged that infected persons would be pouring across our southern border. Now he is doing the same to Syrians who he is convinced are serving as a “Trojan Horse” for terrorists. His plan is to acquire a parcel of land in Syria and make it a “safe zone” for the refugees. All 4,000,000 of them? It would have to be a city the size of Los Angeles. And no matter how good a builder he fancies himself, he isn’t going to construct such a metropolis overnight. These people need housing and food and medicine and all the other necessities of life, not a tents in the desert.

Sadly, that’s the sort of dumbfounded thinking (with an emphasis on the dumb) that dominates the Republican mindset. Another example is Mike Huckabee’s suggestion to only allow Christian refugees in. President Obama called that religious test “shameful.” How he would differentiate the Christians from the Muslims and others, he did not say. I suppose he could tattoo a number on all the Muslims to identify them for rejection. Then he can help Trump load 11,000,000 Latinos into train cars to deport them to “safe zones” in Central America for his reprise of Operation Wetback.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

What the right seems to forget is that these refugees are fleeing the same violence and terrorism that we are fighting in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. They also seem to forget the values embodied in their faith that calls for compassion, service, and brotherhood. And finally, they quite easily forget the example of America’s principles expressed by the gift from France that beckons to the world…

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore; send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

[Addendum:] Jesse Watters of Fox News managed to connect the refugee crisis with the Ebola outbreak. On The Five he said “Obama has imported dangerous things into this country since he got there. He’s imported socialism here, He’s imported Ebola into America. He’s imported illegal aliens. Remember he brought all of the Ebola victims into this country?” All of them? This is the sort of idiocy that permeates the racist right-wing ideology on issues that go far beyond the current problem with refugees.

The Wingnut Reverse Beetlejuice Doctrine: Say ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ Three Times

The warped philosophy of conservatives in America has long held that the primary reason for the persistence of terrorism is that President Obama and other Democrats are reluctant to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” They somehow have concluded that those magical words are key to defeating groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. And they wonder why we think they’re stupid.

Fox News Beetlejuice

Following the Democratic Debate in Iowa on Saturday, the call to cast the magic spell was once again made the centerpiece of rightist criticisms. GOP candidates, and right-wing pundits on Fox News and elsewhere, have uniformly adopted the fabled “Reverse Beetlejuice Doctrine” wherein you shout “radical Islamic terrorism” three times and ISIS disappears. Actually, it isn’t even required to shout it. You can just tweet it. For example:

  • Donald Trump: Why won’t President Obama use the term Islamic Terrorism? Isn’t it now, after all of this time and so much death, about time!
  • Jeb Bush: Yes, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism. #DemDebate
  • Ted Cruz: We need a President who is unafraid to name our enemy — radical Islamic terrorism — and will set out to defeat it.
  • Rick Santorum: Yes, @HillaryClinton we are at war with radical Islam! You are not qualified to serve if you cannot even define our enemy! #DemDebate
  • Mike Huckabee: You’re all grown up now. You can do it. Three words. Ten syllables. Say it with me: “Radical Islamic terrorism.” #DemDebate
  • Carly Fiorina: We need a President who will see and speak and act on the truth…Hillary Clinton will not call this Islamic terrorism. I will.
  • RNC (Republican National Committee: Hillary refuses to say we are at war with “radical Islam.” #DemDebate
  • Todd Starnes (Fox News): If your #DemDebate drinking game words are “Radical Islam” — you’ll be going home cold sober tonight, folks.
  • Eric Bolling (Fox News): Just so all you vapid @HillaryClinton supporters know. She just said “we are not at war with radical Islam”. #parisisburning
  • Donald Trump (again): When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!

In addition to these individuals, conservative media is singing from the same hymnal. National Review, Breitbart News, Washington Times, Free Beacon, and the Daily Caller are among those in the choir. It’s clearly an obsession with these folks. They are convinced that babbling a few specific words is a better indicator of the determination to fight terrorists than actually fighting terrorists. So even though Obama ordered the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and as Commander-in-Chief presided over the killing of thousands of terrorist operatives, including many of their leaders, he can’t possibly be serious about the mission until he recites the approved scriptural incantation.

For the record, just this week under the leadership of President Obama, missions were carried out that are believed to have resulted in the deaths of the ISIS chief in Libya and the infamous ISIS executioner known as Jihadi John. And all without invoking the magic spell.

At Fox News they are engaging in their standard game plan of distorting reality in a way that twists it to their far-right biases. Ed Henry, their senior White House correspondent, in a post-debate report told Sean Hannity that “At one point [Hillary Clinton] said ‘I do not believe we’re at war with radical Islam.’ The reaction to that online and overnight will be very interesting.”

Of course the most interesting part of that is that it is not what she said. What she said was “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.” Nevertheless, Henry’s bastardization of her remarks is what will stick in the already gooey minds of Fox viewers. The cult simply will not permit free thought based on verifiable facts.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

There are numerous reasons for declining to fall into the “radical Islamic terrorist” trap. News Corpse spelled them out early this year in some detail. The gist is that we have legitimate concerns regarding our ability to form coalitions with the Muslim nations in the Middle-East whose cooperation is required to prevail against ISIS. That is not helped by demeaning their faith. But it’s more than that. By accepting the terms and definitions of the terrorists, Republicans, Fox News, et al, are acting as the PR department for the terrorists who desperately aspire to be regarded as the legitimate voice of Islam. Why are they insisting on granting the terrorists that victory?

And here’s some perspective from Muslims on the anti-Islam extremists who pretend to be Muslim.

GOP Debate Lowlights Featuring Donald Trump’s ‘Sarah Palin Moment’

Fox Business Network is patting itself on the back for pulling off the most boring primary debate to date (transcript). They led the candidates through what amounted to a two hour Republican infomercial. The moderators were so detached that when Donald Trump flew off on a tangent about China in response to a question about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, they failed to inform him that China was not a party to the deal. Rand Paul stepped in to correct the record, but they never followed up to get a straight answer from Trump.

And speaking of Donald Trump, he contributed some of the most hair-brained comments of the evening. Most notably, Trump may have delivered what will become his “Sarah Palin Moment.” He was asked what he would do in response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, Trump said “I got to know [Vladimir Putin] very well because we were both on 60 Minutes.” That’s about as delusional as Palin’s belief that her geographical proximity to Russia gave her insight into the region’s labyrinthine complexities.

The Republican Foreign Policy Dream Team:
Donald Trump Sarah Palin

Furthermore, Trump never actually met Putin who taped his 60 Minutes segment in Moscow. Trump was interviewed in his Manhattan penthouse. So what he meant by being “stablemates” is incomprehensible. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that he was being deliberately misleading.

In addition to his fudging a close relationship with Putin, Trump came out against raising the minimum wage because he thinks that people “have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum.” He continued saying that if wages were higher it would make the U.S. less competitive. In other words, he expects American labor to compete with the slave-wage earners of China and other nations that abuse their working class. That should make a good campaign bumper sticker.

But a Trump rant wouldn’t be complete without his descending into rancid bigotry. And Trump didn’t disappoint. While answering a question about his utterly ludicrous proposal to round up and deport eleven million undocumented residents, Trump sought to validate his approach by comparing it to a program implemented by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. And as if to put a sunny disposition on the controversial program, Trump introduced the comparison with a reminder of Eisenhower’s chummy campaign slogan, “I like Ike.” What Trump left out is that Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback (yes, that was what it was called) resulted in dozens of fatalities and a taint of racism. Approximately 1.2 million people were deported to rural areas of Mexico with none of their possessions or other resources necessary to survive. Trump is calling for ten times as many deportations and still won’t explain how he will do it.

Now we don’t want to pick on Trump exclusively. Ben Carson also indicated his opposition to raising the minimum wage saying that “Every time we raise the minimum wage, the number of jobless people increases.” Once again, Carson is pulling data out of a human body part far removed from area that he generally operated on. There is ample evidence that raising the minimum wage has no negative impact whatsoever on job creation. But not satisfied with merely misstating reality, Carson went on to actually call for lowering the minimum wage for some workers.

Marco Rubio weighed in on the matter of wages and education. Apparently he is not too anxious to encourage Americans to seek higher education. Consequently, he advocated for vocational training as opposed to college. Of course, there isn’t anything wrong with vocational schools, which may be superior alternatives for some students. But Rubio reduced the argument to “Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.” However, Rubio’s argument is not based in reality. The median salary for philosophy professors is almost $64,000. The median salary for welders is about $37,400. And philosophy majors (who often go into many other lines of work where an understanding of people and society is required) command higher average salaries throughout their careers. We need both welders and philosophers, but no one should be persuaded based on dishonest applause lines from self-serving politicians.

Rand Paul’s breakout moment in the debate came during a discussion on income inequality when he said that “If you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor.” Not surprisingly, this is another Republican distortion of the truth. Of the ten states with the worst income inequality gaps, six are run by Republicans. Do these people ever get tired of being wrong?

Apparently not. Because Carly Fiorina joined the parade in a rant against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She inexplicably said that “We’ve created something called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a vast bureaucracy with no congressional oversight that’s digging through hundreds of millions of your credit records to detect fraud.” What Fiorina considers a “vast bureaucracy” is a relatively small agency with fewer than 1,000 employees. For comparison, the IRS has about 90,000. What’s more, it has the same measure of congressional oversight of almost every other federal agency. It’s director must be confirmed by the Senate, and it is subject to budgetary constraints imposed by Congress. Finally, you’ll have to ask her what she finds so offensive about uncovering fraud and protecting America’s consumers.

To give credit where it’s due, there some questions that where genuinely probing and worthwhile. Sadly, not one of them got a direct answer. The candidates exercised the old debate strategy of not answering the question you are asked, but the question you wish you were asked. And the moderators did nothing in the way of follow ups to attempt to get a responsive answer. Here are three outstanding, and unanswered, questions:

Gerard Baker, Wall Street Journal: Now, in seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you’ll probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?

Maria Bartiromo, Fox Business: [Hillary Clinton] was the first lady of the United States, a U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state under Barack Obama. She has arguably more experience, certainly more time in government than almost all of you on stage tonight. Why should the American people trust you to lead this country, even though she has been so much closer to the office?

Baker: Income inequality has been rising in the United States. Fifty years ago, for example, the average CEO of a big corporation in this country earned 20 times the average salary of one of his or her workers. Today, that CEO earns about 300 times the average salary of a worker. Does it matter at all that the gap between the rich and everyone else is widening?

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

This debate was a peculiar creature from the start. The Fox Business Network has program ratings so low that Nielsen doesn’t even publish them. The only explanation is that it was a gift from the Republican Party to Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News family. As it turns out, it was a generous gift in that the debate drew a record number of viewers (13,500,000) for the tiny network. Although it was still the smallest audience of any of the debates held so far this election cycle. The next debates are scheduled for November 14 (Democrats on CBS) and December 15 (GOP on CNN).

GOP Debate On Fox Business Wants To Know: Whose Plan Would God Endorse?

The rancorous aftermath of the Republican debate a couple of weeks ago on CNBC laid the foundation for a comparison to what Fox News would do when they hosted their second GOP debate on their sister network, Fox Business. The hype prior to the FBN affair was all about how they would show the rest of the press how a debate should be run.

Fox Business

Well now we know. Rather than questions about whether Donald Trump is a cartoon candidate (which deserves further scrutiny), Fox’s Neil Cavuto, the Glenn Beck of business news, sought to ascertain the candidates’ positions on tax policy. And opening that segment of the program, Cavuto turned to Ben Carson and asked

“I think God is a pretty fair guy. So tithing is a pretty fair process. But Donald Trump says that is not fair, that wealthier taxpayers should pay a higher rate because it’s a fair thing to do. So whose plan would God endorse then doctor?”

Seriously? That was the first question asked on the subject of taxes. And it was rather contentious framing that pitted Carson against Trump, something Republicans railed against after the CNBC debate. And yet, following this debate Fox will undoubtedly spend untold hours exalting themselves as superior debate hosts and praising how they put on a more serious, less combative candidate forum.

It may indeed have been a program more closely in tune with their audience who likely support the notion of a faith-based tax policy. Perhaps the next Republican debate can be an American Idol spin-off called “God’s Favorite,” where candidates compete to see who gets voted out of Heaven.

Anyone who has researched the tax plans of the GOP field, however, will not be surprised by the reliance on faith. They all create varying degrees of additional debt with Trump’s topping out at more than $10 trillion over ten years. The Rev. Ted Cruz continued sermonizing with a comparison of the IRS tax code to the bible. You’ll never guess which one he preferred. But the sin of lying was given short shrift. PolitiFact examined recent representations by some of the candidates and rated them all less than truthful.

So did Fox achieve their goal in presenting a less antagonistic debate that focused on the issues and served the interests of voters? Well not if disseminating real information is the standard of judgment. At no time during the debate was it brought up that these candidates were pitching tax plans that exploded the debt. That seems like something that voters would want to know.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

In the end, though, if the voters were not served, the candidates were. They got pretty much exactly what they wanted: A forum to articulate their views without any serious challenge. The debate was more of an extended infomercial for the candidates who were permitted to spin, lie, and even promote their websites in a brazen appeal for cash. Which actually is kind of a perfect synergy for a GOP (Greedy One Percent) debate on Fox’s money-media network.

The GOP’s Debate Dysfunction Is A Mirror Image Of Their Governing Dysfunction

Anyone who is surprised by the clumsy efforts of Republicans to try to manage their circus of a primary hasn’t been watching what they have been doing in Congress for the past several years. Their legislative record is by far the least productive in modern times with both the fewest bills passed and the fewest hours in session. They have developed a reputation as ineffective, incompetent, and obstructionist, even failing to pass their own bills.

GOP Debate

The recent calamity surrounding their election of a new Speaker, following the wingnut driven exile of John Boehner, didn’t do much to enhance their reputation. They eventually settled for Paul Ryan, who doesn’t want the job and is despised and distrusted by their right wing “Freedom” caucus. What the Tea Party has wrought for the GOP is The Congress That Can’t Govern Straight. And not surprisingly, the resounding chaos and absence of leadership that is emblematic of the GOP’s congressional majority is precisely what is being seen in their response to what they regard as a poor debate performance.

Following the debacle at CNBC, the candidates attempted to band together to insist that reforms be made in order to avoid the messy affair that took place last week. They resolved to produce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would include a list of demands to present to the media organizations that produce and broadcast the debates. But as soon as it began the edges started to fray leading to a complete collapse. Within days the congregation of candidates fell apart. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and John Kasich have said that they will not sign on to the draft MOU. Carly Fiorina didn’t even send a representative to the meeting. Chris Christie called out his rivals for complaining and boasted that all he needs is a stage and a podium (a line that Trump later stole, after he had already done his share of whining). Consequently, the group’s MOU appear’s to be a non-starter.

The whole process, however, was a catastrophe resulting in a set of criteria that was in no way different than what was already being done. In other words, it was a lot of frantic bluster that changed nothing. If you compare their demands to the debate agreement drawn up between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, you are not going to find much difference. What’s more, nothing in the MOU would have prevented any of the things that occurred during the CNBC debate to which they so fiercely objected. So what’s the point?

Some of the candidates had suggestions for reform that never made it into the MOU. Ted Cruz expressed his desire to see the debate moderators limited to registered Republicans like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. Because these respected journalists would bring a air of dignity and rationality to the debate. Ben Carson floated the idea of not broadcasting the debates on TV. He also lobbied for a two hour time limit with all 15 candidates in the same debate. Each would get a five minute opening and closing statement. Of course that would take two and a half hours.

Clearly these people cannot be taken seriously. It is unlikely that they even intended to pursue these debate negotiations. All they really wanted was an opportunity to bitch about the media, an easy target and a reliable applause line. But it wasn’t the media in general, just a specific subset that irks them. That would include anything in the NBC family and any network with a foreign sounding names (i.e. Telemundo). To be fair, Jeb Bush asked that Telemundo’s debate be reinstated, but Trump quickly slapped that down saying that if it was he would walk. There was one network though that got a free pass. All the parties agreed that the debate demands would not apply to Fox News because “people are afraid to make Roger [Ailes] mad.”

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

If there is one thing that is obvious about this charade, it’s that it couldn’t possibly succeed. Republicans aren’t really looking for fairness or balance in their debates. They want to turn the debate into an infomercial for the GOP. The networks could never agree to that. And with all of the infighting and conflicting priorities among the candidates it was destined to disintegrate. And like everything they have tried to do Washington, Republicans have proven once again to be bumbling fools.