Book By Fox News ‘Liberal’ Uses Free Speech To Claim Liberals Are Killing Free Speech

The network that markets itself as “fair and balanced” has spent years proving their commitment to that slogan by balancing their right-wing infused “news” delivered by GOP mouthpieces with right-wing infused “news” delivered by people they falsely claim are liberals. The roster of fake Democrats on Fox News is extensive and includes rabid rightists like Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, and Kirsten Powers, all of whom freely express their contempt for the Democratic Party.

Kirsten Powers has long been a member of the Fake Democrat Society. She invariably agrees with her Fox News colleagues whenever she engages in a so-called debate on current events. Fox will predictably call on her to discuss issues that they know will reflect poorly on other Democrats. So if there is bad news for President Obama or Hillary Clinton making the rounds, Powers will get extra airtime to pile on. And she can be relied upon to make incendiary comments like the time she accused Obama of sympathizing with terrorists. Plus, she gets the benefit of the Fox marketing machine when she has a liberal bashing book to promote.

Fox News Kirsten Powers

This new book by Powers, The Silencing,” has the not-at-all derogatory subtitle of “How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” What could be more appropriate for the network that daily exercises its free speech to disparage lefties while complaining about being victims of official censorship? And what better message for a supposedly liberal pundit to devote to an entire book? And while we’re at it, how dumb is it for someone exercising her free speech in a book (and daily on Fox News) to complain about free speech being killed?

The truth is that this book is a petty and self-serving response by Powers to the derision she endures for her conservative activism while pretending to be a liberal. For some reason she thinks that she can get away with wearing a Democratic label and bashing Democrats, but never be criticized for it. So she wrote a book to further hammer away at those with whom she professes to be aligned. What better way to demonstrate loyalty than to accuse your so-called friends of “killing” free speech?

In some respects this book is just the sequel to Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate,” the book her fellow fake Dem, Juan Williams, wrote a couple of years ago on pretty much the same subject. Both books attack what they regard as political correctness as exercised by a liberal establishment that objects to Fox News passing off right-wingers as Democrats.

As evidence of the rightward ideological slant of Powers, her book was published by the uber-conservative Regnery Publishing, the literary home to Dinesh D’Souza, Ed Klein, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Newt Gingrich, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, and Patrick Buchanan. That is not the sort of company kept by real liberals. However, Powers’ book fits right in with the other tomes lambasting liberalism and chronicling the exploits of our allegedly treasonous and foreign-born president.

Additionally, Powers has been lauded by the ultra-rightist Breitbart News on numerous occasions, even as they joined the charade that Powers is not one of them. And the first excerpts of her book were published by the house organ of the Heritage Foundation, now led by former GOP Senator and Tea Party icon Jim DeMint. These are associations that expose the ulterior motives that Powers is pursuing with her partisan diatribe. Those motives are further revealed on the inside flap of her book:

“Free speech and freedom of conscience have long been core American values. Yet a growing intolerance from the left side of the political spectrum is threatening Americans’ ability to freely express beliefs without fear of retaliation.”

First of all, the notion that free speech comes with a shield from retaliation is contrary to the definition of free speech. What conservatives like Powers want is the ability to say all the nasty, dishonest things they like without being subject to rebuttal or criticism. It’s free speech for them, but no one else.

From a broader perspective, however, this book just reveals an effort to take down liberals for perceived intolerance, while completely ignoring the same from conservatives. If Powers were the least bit concerned about representing a progressive worldview, she would have authored a more balanced assessment of the matter. The fact that she limited her inquiry to the alleged crimes of liberals shows exactly where her heart lies.

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

Furthermore, the inside flap also declares that the reader will “learn how the illiberal left is obsessed with delegitimizing Fox News.” And that, in the end, is its whole reason for existing. It is a flagrantly self-serving attempt to promote Fox News, excuse their blatant biases, and restore the credibility she and Fox have lost due to their rampant dissemination of lies, which PolitiFact has found is the majority of their reporting.

Fox News PolitiFact


10 thoughts on “Book By Fox News ‘Liberal’ Uses Free Speech To Claim Liberals Are Killing Free Speech

  1. You have done exactly what Powers said in her book. You have attacked her at the same time ignoring what she has to say. It’s the Liberal way, tearing down people with whom you disagree.

    If you have watched for any length of time you would know that she is on fact a Democrat and actually stands up for those values. The fact that should dare go off the plantation and crticizes other Democrats shows that she has more courage than people like you who are blinded by an ideology that say people must be marginalized if they speak the truth.

    • You have done exactly what I said in this article. It’s the wingnut way. Powers does not get a free pass to smear liberals without being subject to rebuttal.

      I have watched Powers for years and I provided specific proof of my allegations that she is a fraud, which you totally ignored. She hasn’t gone “off the plantation,” she has moved into the Master’s mansion and is now a part of oppressive regime.

      And why do you say that my little article is bad because it “marginalizes” Powers, but you didn’t accuse Powers of marginalizing me and other liberals by writing her book? Can you see the hypocrisy in your comment? Disagreeing IS free speech, and we’re both entitled to do it.

      • Marcos is 100% correct. You are lying through your teeth about Kirsten – and Mara, and Juan, etc. Kirsten’s policy beliefs are solidly liberal. She simply wants to win the political debates with actual debates, not with insults and ad hominem and screaming that your opponent is a racist/homophobe/hater. And you have no right whatsoever to claim that she wants to have the freedom to spew nasty insults, because that is all you traffic in.

        The following illustration says it all: Kirsten ripped into both Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher back in 2012. Pretty much the entire left-wing offered up no condemnation of Maher’s hate-spewing swill. I look forward to buying her book. It should be an excellent read.

        • What are Kristen’s beliefs and what are the arguments she has made in what debate you speak of.

          Simple questions all if you’re not just making those claims on nothing do contextualize if you will.

          Actually Mark has every right to criticise her just as she has every right to criticise the left in the book. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, in fact you’re exercising YOUR freedom of speech here to say that Mark cannot exercise his!

          As mentioned in his piece, that’s a textbook example of the right wing not understanding the 1st amendment.

          You can point out where Mark is wrong in his piece in terms of criticism, to show how his critical piece is not valid, but the moment you day that he cannot criticise her without doing that are essentially using your 1st amendment right to denounce his. That’s the paradox he mentioned already.

          So about the issue on Rush and Maher, the left didn’t call out Maher did they? Did the right call out Rush for the same? Given they still largely adore him I’m guessing they didn’t. That makes your oh so rightgeous screed about the left while ignoring the right’s own silence on Rush a biased piece of trash (which through literally EVERY post you’ve made here you’ve shown that you certainly are just that).

          Coming back on point though, what does her ripping both Rush and Maher do in any way to cement her credibility or unbiasness in the face of the other things she’s done?

          It’s not like Maher wasn’t called out by certain indoviduals on the left btw, so was Eric Schultz and Brian Williams (but not Bill ‘O Rielly). How is that incident on its own a stamp of approval on her unbiasness as a whole?

          Do explain.

          • Clarification, then. What I should have said is this: Under the 1st Amendment, Mark has every right to claim Kirsten Powers just wants to say nasty things about liberals, BUT HE HAS NO CREDIBILITY ON THE SUBJECT BECAUSE THAT’S ALL HE DOES WITH CONSERVATIVES. Capeesh? Also, Mark claims she is not a liberal. Mark is lying. If you listen to her opinions about policies, she is clearly a liberal. She just doesn’t pull a Chris Matthews and claim that her opponents are racists. In other words, she is a genuinely nice person. Apparently, Mark can’t handle that.

            And since Kirsten Powers ripped into both Limbaugh and Maher, that makes her the most consistent person anywhere in the media to comment on the subject.

  2. I’ve locked horns with a couple of annoyingly PC liberals who like to think they can police other peoples’ free expression, but I don’t meet many people like that, and it’s hardly worth writing a book about. In my experience, narrow-minded libs are easier to reason with than narrow-minded conservatives. Rightwing “political correctness” can’t really be countered with reason… they believe what they believe and if you don’t agree… STFU.

  3. This country needs to stand for the values of the forefathers! Some people think that we should have abandoned GOD ie. taking his name out of our nation’s pleadge of allegiance. Now this nation has decided that it will decide which sex we want to be and marry! Yes, the day of the Sabbath is clear now! Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that it has changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday! We also know that the days of the week weren’t changed. And, the first day of the week is Sunday the Seventh Day of the week is Saturday! The BIBLE states in Genesis 1:5,8 tells us that the evening is the morning/begining of the next day. And Matthew 27: 57- 66 andMatthew 28: 1-8 these scriptures tell you that certain days are the the sabbath the day before fist day of the week it was the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11). The first day of the week isn’t a regular work day – one of the six days on which God worked!

    • Now GOD is no longer Blessing this Nation! We are no longer the a governing/ economic ????power of the world! But, this nation is looking for help from other nations economically – Buying our bonds etc!

Comments are closed.