Unethical And Embarrassing: Fox News “Psycho” Analyst Blasted By Medical Pros

Posted by on November 7, 2014 at 9:29 am. 1 Comments :

The Associated Press has published a scathing profile of Fox News Medical A-Team member, and disgraced psychiatric fraud, Keith Ablow. The article by the AP’s media analyst David Bauder solicited opinions from distinguished psychiatric professionals and academics and found Ablow’s quackery to be outside the bounds of acceptable conduct, saying that…

“…the Fox News Channel analyst freely mixes psychiatric assessments with political criticism, a unique twist in the realm of cable news commentary that some medical colleagues find unethical.”

Keith Ablow

For more hysterical examples from the Fox Fib Factory…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

Indeed, Ablow has demonstrated himself to be a committed purveyor of vitriol aimed at President Obama and other mostly liberal targets. His most recent screed for Fox made an absurd and dangerous argument for an “American Jihad,” wherein he advocated for a military campaign to force other countries to adopt the American political system.

For more on Ablow’s unique brand of assholiness, see these selected choices from the recent past: He charged that President Obama was waging psychological warfare on the American people. He praised Newt Gingrich for being unfaithful to multiple wives. He welcomed the pain of Americans suffering through the recession. He offered his recipe for building a terrorist that read more like building a Tea Party. He repeatedly diagnosed President Obama and others without ever having examined, or even met them. And my personal favorite, he actually had praise for the Unabomber’s sociological philosophy.

A couple of the assessments of “doctor” Ablow’s misconduct by his the real psychiatric pros he would like to imagine are his peers include…

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons: It is shameful and unfortunate that he is given a platform by Fox News or any other media organization. Basically he is a narcissistic self-promoter of limited and dubious expertise.

Dr. Ford Vox, Shepherd Brain Injury Rehabilitation Center : [R]eally just irresponsible and it’s embarrassing for physicians in general.

But perhaps the most stinging criticism came from the spokesman for the primary target of Ablow’s virulent wrath. Apparently Ablow’s attacks had little to no impact on his intended victims. Jay Carney, who recently left the post of White House Press Secretary wasn’t even sure who Ablow was, saying…

“I’m confident that no one in the White House spends any time thinking about him. Fox is Fox. It doesn’t really matter who the salesman is. The product is always the same.”

That just about sums it up. Ablow is an ineffectual scoundrel whose lunatic ravings are generally ignored. Yet he is emblematic of the hateful bias that permeates the alleged “news” network. In fact, the description of Ablow as “a narcissistic self-promoter of limited and dubious expertise,” could actually apply to almost anyone at Fox News: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, etc.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Media Matters has compiled a revealing video collage of Ablow’s dementia.

[Update] Ablow has characteristically responded with a stream of venomous drivel, saying that “As a medical professional it is readily apparent that [Obama] is a President who has issues with the nation of which he is President.” He regards Bauder’s article as “an unfair attempt to impair my credibility.” But that would require that he had any credibility in the first place.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Glenn Beck Wants Americans To Pay More For Gas To Help Russia And Saudi Arabia

Posted by on November 6, 2014 at 4:14 pm. 3 Comments :

Welcome to the Bizarro World of Glenn Beck. Two years ago, when gas prices were soaring, Beck engaged in conspiracy theorizing that blamed President Obama for deliberately causing the spike as some sort of plot to advance social justice or environmentalism. Beck asserted that the high cost of fuel would lead to war with the Middle East as a collapsing America became desperate for cheap energy.

Glenn Beck

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Guess what happened in the past two years? Gas prices have plummeted and Beck now regards that as a portent of doom. He says that it is “not good for America,” and will lead to war with the Middle East and Russia (video below).

Beck: When oil goes under the $80.00 a barrel mark, and it’s sustained there for very long, it puts pressure on the economic viability of all the countries that produce crude oil, for instance Russia and Saudi Arabia. When that happens their economies begin to destabilize and when you destabilize the world even more, it causes more problems.

It’s awfully compassionate for Beck to be so concerned about the stabilization of two countries for which he has previously expressed nothing but hate. But it is curious that his interest in their economic viability comes at the expense of American oil consumers. So why would Beck propose that Americans pay more at the pump in order to help out a couple of countries that he doesn’t much care for?

Beck: We’re not far from war as it is and the economy is in real trouble here. When you have people like Saudi Arabia (unscrupulous) and Russia (totally unscrupulous) and they want their money, they’ll get it.

So according to Beck, expensive oil was going to send us to war, and cheap oil is also going to send us to war. Either oil has to level at just the right price for Goldilocks Beck or we need to dispense with it entirely. But then those options may also lead to war. Beck hasn’t specifically addressed them yet.

What’s more, Beck’s admonitions about the pressure on the economic viability of countries that produce crude oil will also affect the United States, which happens to be the world’s largest producer of crude oil. Consequently, his theory that such countries would become economically destabilized applies more to the U.S. than it does to Russia and Saudi Arabia. Maybe his real concern is associated with the welfare of oil companies like his pals the Koch brothers. If they become economically destabilized who would bankroll the wars on women, voters, the environment, seniors, and Christmas?

If all of that seems just a tad bit insane, you have the disadvantage of a rational mind and the unfortunate ability to engage in critical thinking. These are mental hardships that Beck and his disciples never have to worry about. But as Ricky Gervais so brilliantly put it…

“Ignorance might be bliss for the ignorant, but for the rest of us it’s a fucking pain in the ass.”

Shameless self-promotion…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.


Democrats And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (For Republicans)

Posted by on November 5, 2014 at 11:31 am. 20 Comments :

Let’s get this out of the way right up front: Election day 2014 sucked elephant balls. It is saddling America with a Republican senate that is notable for being unproductive and adversarial. It’s new leader is a hyper-partisan, Washington fossil whose only agenda is obstructionism. One of its new members is an Agenda 21 conspiracy nut who carries a gun to defend herself from the government she now represents. Florida and Kansas returned to office the two least popular governors in the country. And the right-wing noise machine is going to be gloating feverishly for weeks.

But the real story underlying this election is one that the media will almost certainly fail to address. Despite the election returns, America hates the Republican Party and its policies. The turnout is estimated to be about 38%. That means that the GOP victory was achieved with a majority of a little more than one-third of the electorate, or about 20%. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican agenda.

Election Turnout 2014

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The demographic makeup of the voters this year was decidedly older and whiter. It was also more concentrated in the South which accounted for 34% of all votes. The rest of the country came in a substantial nine to twelve points lower.

Just two years ago President Obama was resoundingly reelected along with increasing the number of Democrats in both houses of Congress. The turnout then was 58%, or 53% higher than 2014. Exit polls show that both parties are underwater in voter approval, but Democrats are still favored over Republicans 44% to 40%. Exit polling also gives Obama a 41% approval rating, compared to just 13% for Congress.

On the basis of this fractured and biased sliver of the electorate, Chris Wallace of Fox News declared this morning that “The Democratic Party brand is damaged.” But further examination of the exit polls says that isn’t true. On virtually every policy question, voters sided with the Democrats. That includes ObamaCare, immigration reform, increasing the minimum wage, same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana, abortion, and climate change. And when asked about preferences for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton is leading every GOP opponent (Clinton 42%, Jeb Bush 29%, Rand Paul 26%, Chris Christie 24%, and Rick Perry 24%).

2016 holds more bad news for Republicans and their new senate majority. The GOP will be defending 24 seats, as compared to only 10 for the Democrats. Nine of the those GOP seats are in states won by Obama in 2012. So are all of the Democratic seats. With a larger and more representative electorate it is almost a certainty that the senate will flip back to the Democrats. And with a popular and history-making candidate like Clinton that outcome is even more likely.

In the meantime, we can expect some epic battles to ensue. Although Mitch McConnell made some perfunctory remarks signalling bipartisan cooperation, his resume suggests a different course entirely. He told supporters last night that “Just because we have a two-party system doesn’t mean we have to be in perpetual conflict.” That coming from the man who presided over more filibusters than any senate in history.

But the battles will not be limited to those between the two parties. McConnell is going to experience some of the misery of John Boehner as he tries to herd the Tea Party contingent of his own party into some semblance of unity. Don’t expect Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mike Lee or Joni Ernst to fall obediently in line. In fact, Cruz is already announcing his intention to prosecute the President for many of the phony scandals for which the GOP-run House failed to find any wrongdoing. He told Fox News last night that…

“I hope we begin serious, systematic, sober hearings, examining executive abuse, regulatory abuse, lawlessness, abuse of power. Whether it is IRS wrongly targeting citizens or the debacle of Benghazi and four Americans who lost their lives and why more was not done to save them, or whether it’s the lawlessness that pervaded Obamacare as the president and executive branch has tried to pick and choose which laws to follow. I hope we see serious oversight on those fronts.”

That’s a path that leads to increased animosity and the “perpetual conflict” that McConnell says he hopes to avoid. But with Cruz and Paul and Rubio amongst those in his caucus who are contemplating a presidential run, can McConnell prevent them from hijacking the senate for their own purposes? And will their purposes include attempts to impeach Obama as some Republicans and conservative pundits have already advocated?

The next two years are going to be a bumpy ride for both parties and, unfortunately, the American people. There is much that we cannot anticipate at this time. What we can safely assume is that the extremist, Tea Party wing of the GOP will deliver some histrionics and hilarity. And Fox News will cover all of it as if it were sober statesmanship. So buckle up, folks. And be glad that the ride is over in only two years.

Shameless self-promotion…
Get my book Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.


Whining On Fox News: Correspondent Sulks When Democratic Candidate Snubs Him

Posted by on November 4, 2014 at 8:29 am. 1 Comments :

Poor thing. Fox News correspondent John Roberts went into a deep depression after he was rejected as a debate moderator by Democratic Senate candidate Michele Nunn of Georgia. Roberts took his mopey lament to Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News and complained about being shunned by meany Michele saying that…

“For some reason, the Nunn campaign just does not want to talk to Fox News […] They didn’t like the idea that someone from Fox would be moderating that debate, so out I went.”

Fox News Whining

Out he goes, into the cruel, cold world of right-wing hacks who make a career out of bashing Democrats and liberals. Now, “for some reason,” he is reduced to having only Cavuto and the rest of the conservative Fox machine into which his lonely teardrops can fall.

As usual, Fox is demonstrating their rank hypocrisy by criticizing Nunn for requesting another moderator (who turned out to be a local Fox affiliate anchor). But they haven’t been the least bit critical of Joni Ernst, the GOP senate candidate in Iowa, who has refused to grant ANY interviews with Iowa journalists. However, she did go on Fox News.

It’s laughable that Fox would try to extract sympathy for being shunned by a Democrat. They know damn well the reason. They are a brazenly hostile enterprise whose mission from day one was to smear progressive values and those who profess them. Roberts fits squarely into that mold, making him an inappropriate moderator for a fair and balanced debate. And in the same segment with Cavuto he provided evidence of why no one at Fox should preside over any debate when he admitted that Fox is just a communications vehicle for the Republican Party, saying that…

“In states where you’ve got to get independent, Republican votes, doing something with the Fox News Channel is something that they need to do.”

This complaint is even more laughable considering the fact that Republicans are the ones who wrote nixing debate moderators into their campaign handbook. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, announced last year that the party intended to handpick their debate moderators and would not countenance any whom they regarded as unfriendly. Discussing debate strategy with Fox News (who else?) he said that…

“I think 23 debates is ridiculous, but the second thing that is ridiculous is allowing moderators, who are not serving the best interests of the candidate and the party, to actually be the people to be deposing our people. And I think that’s totally wrong.”

Somewhere Priebus got the notion that moderators from the press were supposed to serve the interests of the candidates. Certainly the interest of the voters never entered into it. And to that end he led the party to ban CNN and MSNBC from hosting any GOP primary debates. That leaves Fox News as the only cable news network that Priebus considers friendly enough to host his party’s debates.

While Republicans have openly declared that they have implemented a wholesale ban on moderators they don’t like from across the mediascape for the entire primary season, they are sorely miffed at a Democrat who asked to substitute a single moderator at a single a debate. So when Fox asks “Are candidates limiting media access?” you have to wonder why that is so disturbing to them when they don’t care at all if a whole political party does it. It really makes you feel sorry for them, but not in the way they hoped.


Obama Bitching: The GOP’s Empty Mandate Of 2014

Posted by on November 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm. 5 Comments :

Tomorrow the midterm election will finally be over (except for Georgia and Louisiana) and most of the so-called liberal media is predicting that it will be a Republican day with their party taking over control of the Senate.

That outcome is by no means certain. Democrats are said to command a superior ground game to get out the vote and all they need to do is hold the line in a couple of key battleground states to deny Republicans their victory. If Democrats manage to do that it will shock the blathering media drones and put a damper on the GOP’s funeral party.

But what if the Republicans pull it off? What if they get their Senate majority and Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader and every committee chair is handed off to a Republican who hates government? Based on the campaigning of the last few months, what mandate could the Republican Party claim for the two years until the next election (where they will probably be thrown out again)?

Well, if you take the words of the Republicans themselves, the only issue that they put forward for 2014 is that President Obama sucks. They abandoned every salient issue from immigration to taxes to abortion to deficits to terrorism, etc. The only matter that Republican candidates raised with any regularity was that their Democratic opponent was in the same party as the President and supported his policies. They rarely mentioned what those policies were, just implied that they were bad. The typical arguments for Republicans were merely arguments against Obama. For instance…

Sen. Rand Paul: This election will be a referendum on the president.

Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly: This isn’t a pro-GOP election, it’s an anti-Obama election.

Sen. John Cornyn: It’s not as though people have all of a sudden fallen in love with Republicans. It’s just a loss of confidence in the administration.

Indeed, people have not fallen in love with Republicans. In fact, Obama’s approval rating in the low forties is four times what congress can muster. And he remains more popular than the GOP, the Tea Party, and the media that is belittling him. But since Republicans have no issues they can affirmatively advance, they have adopted a national platform of bitching about Obama.

Obama/Congress Approval

Republicans once promised to make ObamaCare the keystone of their campaign, but that fell off their list after millions of Americans signed up and the nation didn’t collapse into a communist dictatorship. RNC chair Reince Priebus was so hopped up on an anti-ObamaCare high that he said…

“I think it’s going to be Obamacare all the time between now and November 5. If you ask me what day it is, I’m going to tell you it’s Obamacare. If you want to know what I want in my coffee, I’m going to tell you Obamacare. I’m going to talk about Obamacare all the time because I think it’s the No. 1 issue.”

He has barely mentioned it since. In the final weeks of the campaign the media has been helping the GOP to distract the public from substantive issues by stirring up panic over phony crises like ISIL and Ebola. However, neither of those qualify as planks in a political platform. And even if they did, the GOP hasn’t taken a consistent position on them other than demanding that America oppose the Ebola-infected terrorist children who are streaming across the border with cocaine and condoms.

Consequently, should the GOP win a majority in the Senate they won’t have a mandate for any legislative agenda at all. They failed to convince voters that any of their policies were superior because they hardly mentioned any of their policies. The only thing they ran on was Obama-hate, and the only reason for a victory, if there is one, is that Democrats tend to sit out midterm elections.

When your own candidates are admitting that the election is a referendum on a President who is leaving office in two years, you have no authority to set an agenda. And since that has been the operating philosophy of the GOP for the past six years, don’t expect anything to change should a Republican Senate come out of the election tomorrow.

Republicans despise government and insist that it doesn’t work. Then, when they come to power, they do everything they can to prove it. That’s why the last GOP administration left the country crippled and despairing. If you don’t want to see that again, be sure to get off your asses and vote tomorrow. Whatever problems you may have with Obama or Democrats, they are minor when compared to the damage the GOP could do with their nutcases chairing committees like Jim Inhofe who believes that Climate Change is a hoax and is in line to head the Committee on the Environment.


Fox News Crocumentary On Alleged Bin Laden Shooter May Be Bogus, Unlawful, and Dangerous

Posted by on November 1, 2014 at 1:04 pm. 7 Comments :

Last week, amid great fanfare, Fox News announced that they would be airing a special presentation that features a Navy SEAL who claims to have fired the shot that killed Osama Bin Laden. The press release for the program that Fox calls “an extensive, first-hand account of the mission,” contains this description:

“The two-night presentation will feature an exclusive interview with the Navy SEAL who says he fired the shots that killed terrorist leader Usama Bin Laden. […] Revealing his identity and speaking out publicly for the first time, the Navy SEAL, also known as “The Shooter,” will share his story of training to be a member of America’s elite fighting force and explain his involvement in Operation Neptune Spear, the mission that killed Bin Laden.”

Fox News

There are, however, a number of problems with this project, beginning with what Fox says in their own press release. The first paragraph describes Robert O’Neill as “the Navy SEAL who says he fired the shots.” While he may “say” that he fired the shots that killed Bin Laden, there is no confirmation of that from anyone else. Not his fellow SEALs, not his superiors, not any eyewitnesses, not the Pentagon, no one. Fox News has to rely solely on this person’s account of the mission for their story.

Relying on this one account is also troubling because simply by coming forward the person is bringing into question his own credibility. First and foremost, Navy SEALs are bound by non-disclosure agreements that prohibit them from talking about the details of their missions, particularly those that are confidential and involve national security. The Pentagon has taken notice of this and urged that he comply with his obligations and honor his duty. A Pentagon spokesperson told a reporter at Business Insider that…

“Navy SEALs continue to serve and fight bravely around the world, accomplishing critical missions that keep our nation safe. The major details of the bin Laden mission are well known, many of them a matter of public record. We urge any former SEAL to abide by the SEAL Ethos, particularly the core tenant, ‘I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions.'”

By appearing on Fox News O’Neill, if he is who he says he is, is violating his oath to the Navy SEALS and, quite possibly, the law. In a previous instance of a SEAL going public with information about the Bin Laden operation, Matt Bissonnette is currently undergoing a criminal investigation for publishing a book that he failed to vet through the Defense Department. Fox News is well aware of this as they reported his legal jeopardy two years ago. They also reported that his fellow SEALs were upset that he had published a book that could endanger them and future missions. What’s more, it was Fox who outed Bissonnette, whose book was published under the pseudonym, Mark Owen. By revealing his identity Fox subjected him and others to death threats. The network was criticized harshly by members of the military and media ethicists.

There is no reason why the new Fox News program on Bin Laden would not have the same consequences. The Pentagon has already weighed in, and the risk to other SEALs is just as plausible. By disclosing his own identity he could inadvertently lead revenge seekers to discover the identities of his associates. Should any of them or their families be harmed, the responsibility lies with him.

And for what? There is no apparent news value in what he may have to relate. Sure, there is curiosity about a first-hand account of the operation, but there is nothing that is pertinent to the public’s understanding, while there are real risks to individuals and future missions.

He is nothing but a glory hog who is grabbing attention for himself at the expense of his comrades who participated equally in the dangerous operation, but who are honoring their oaths. His contribution to the record consists mainly of soap opera melodrama that appeals to the tabloid set as demonstrated by Fox’s press release:

“Offering never before shared details, the presentation will include ‘The Shooter’s’ experience in confronting Bin Laden, his description of the terrorist leader’s final moments as well as what happened when he took his last breath.”

Spoiler Alert: Bin Laden’s final moments were probably him wondering who these dudes were in his bedroom for about a second and a half before he took a bullet to the head. And you didn’t need a two night Fox News ratings gimmick to learn that.

This program is abetting potentially unlawful activity and endangering lives. And there is no way of verifying its authenticity. Under the circumstances, a legitimate news enterprise would never consider airing it. Fortunately for Fox, legitimacy has never been a part of their business plan. As for the alleged SEAL, he should keep his mouth shut until such time as the story can be told responsibly with credit going to everyone who deserves it.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

[Addendum 1] Phil Bronstein wrote an article for Esquire if February of 2013 that purported to be the story of the “shooter.” It was shortly thereafter criticized as “a giant fraud.” Also, now promoting a new book, Bissonnette has admitted that he was wrong to publish classified material about the Bin Laden operation.

[Addendum 2] Fox News gets scooped by the UK’s tabloid Daily Mail. They published an article identifying the “shooter” on November 5th, a week before Fox’s big “exclusive.”

[Addendum 3] CNN also scooped Fox by airing an interview with O’Neill prior to Fox’s broadcast. This brought out the jealousy of Fox News as anchor Shepard Smith complained that after Fox announced the project “everybody and their mother jumped on this,” and he singled out CNN saying that it’s “really kind of embarrassing for them.” Smith went on to say…

“Others have had input on this cause I’ve seen them over on the hater channels. People on the hate channels are like ‘He should never have done this.'”

The “hate” channels? Is he sure he wasn’t watching Fox? And the people he is talking about are Navy SEALS who have had the integrity to honor their oaths to their comrades. Don’t let anyone tell you that Smith is somehow different than the other hacks on Fox.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

What’s Wrong With America? Why Is Anyone Voting Republican?

Posted by on October 31, 2014 at 4:37 pm. 8 Comments :

A new poll from Fox News affirms what virtually every other poll has found when people are asked to name the most important problem facing the country. And as James Carville noted long ago, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Economic Poll

The Fox poll had an overwhelming 43% of registered voters citing the economy as the most important issue. That was two and a half times more than the next three issues, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy.

Nearly every economic indicator shows that the economy has been booming in recent years. The Obama administration has presided over the biggest and most enduring advance in fifty years. The Dow reached another all-time high today. Unemployment is 5.7%, nearly half of what Obama inherited from George W. Bush. GDP growth increased at an annual rate of 3.5% in the third quarter of 2014. Housing is up, interest rates are down, inflation is imperceptible, and consumer confidence rose in October to its highest level since 2007.

The only significant low points are average wages and public sector employment. In both of those matters it has been the Republican Party that has thrown obstacles into the path of progress. Democrats are universally in support of a minimum wage increase that economists agree would produce higher demand for goods and services, thus stimulating job growth. And Obama has been trying to drag the GOP along to allocate funds for infrastructure development which would not only create jobs, but improve the environment for businesses to succeed. Yet conservative naysayers continue to stifle these measures for no reason other than to hurt the President and his party.

Given the success on so many levels of the President’s economic record, and the fact that the economy is the number one issue on the minds of voters, the obvious question is: Why on Earth are Democrats struggling to hold their position in Congress? The American people ought to be rewarding success and punishing the obstacles to it. With a more cooperative legislative branch, Obama could achieve a great deal more in the last two years of his presidency.

And therein lies the answer to the question. The last thing the GOP wants is for Obama to be successful. It’s what they pledged on the eve of his first inauguration when Mitch McConnell declared that his top priority was to make Obama a one-term president. It’s what their de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, pronounced when he said that he wants Obama to fail. It’s why they orchestrated a shutdown last year that achieved nothing but cost $24 billion. And it’s why they have a kneejerk opposition to anything that Obama proposes, even if it was originally proposed by a Republican.

Also notable is that the other issues cited as important to voters also have seen measurable improvement during the Obama years. Illegal immigration is way down, while simultaneously domestic responses to the plight of undocumented residents have become much more compassionate and rational. As for health care, more Americans are covered by insurance than ever, and at less cost. And their coverage is more comprehensive and cannot be denied due to preexisting conditions.

Nevertheless, midterm polling is inexplicably showing tight senate races in several battleground states. With all of the good news, Democrats should be running away with this. But Republicans have expertly managed a campaign of dishonest negativity that has distorted the debate and damaged the perception of Democratic candidates. They have also had the benefit of bottomless barrels of cash from billionaires like the Koch brothers with vested interests that do not align with those of ordinary Americans.

Still, in most of these states the Democrats would be leading comfortably if the poll queried the entire electorate. But when constraining the poll to “likely” voters, the numbers fall decidedly against the Democrats. That’s because many of the traditionally Democratic constituents tend to sit out midterm elections.

If Democrats can reverse that trend through voter education, and a strong ground game getting out the vote on election day, the pollsters and the Republicans and the media will be shocked by the results. But it will take money and hard work to do it. Any encouragement you can give to people you know to insure that they vote will pay off in dividends. Especially in races that are so close. And here are a couple of other ways you can help:

Contribute to or volunteer with…
MoveOn.org or Democracy for America

You’ll be glad you did. The work, calling other Democrats like yourself, is fun and rewarding. And any funds can help to expand the outreach. The alternative is to wake up Wednesday morning with the prospect of a senate run by Mitch McConnell where every committee chair is a Republican who wishes harm on this President and his agenda. Victory is not out of reach, but it will require some determination and commitment. So please consider everything that you can do to be a part of a major electoral upset that will put the Tea Party on its knees.


Rand Paul States The Obvious: The Republican Party Brand Sucks

Posted by on October 30, 2014 at 2:33 pm. 3 Comments :

Every now and then a politician will surprise people by saying something that is manifestly true. However, they often only resort to that strategy when it is also unarguably obvious or they have an absurd explanation for why the truth is what it is.

Sen. Rand Paul (KY-Tea Party) made just such a pronouncement yesterday while on the campaign trail for his Kentucky colleague, Mitch McConnell. The glaringly evident observation that Paul issued was that “The Republican Party brand sucks.”

Rand Paul

No, really? Who knew? Well, pretty much everybody except for GOP chair Reince Priebus and most of the cult-bound viewers of Fox News. Notwithstanding all of the media pouncing on President Obama’s low approval rating in recent polls, his 41% looks awfully good compared to the GOP’s ranking down in the low teens. So it’s understandable that Paul would seek to provide a tortured interpretation of reality to explain the public’s distaste for his party. And apparently it’s all the fault of colored folk.

Paul: For 80 years African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans. Why? Because of a perception. The problem is the perception that no one in the Republican Party cares.

Indeed there is a perception among African-Americans (and Latinos, and women, and gays, and youth, and seniors, and workers, and the poor) that Republicans don’t care about them. But it is a perception based on political reality. The GOP’s policies have been aimed straight at the heart of Americans who are not wealthy or otherwise privileged. When Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage, and cutting social security, and advocating tax reform that puts more money in the pockets of the rich while incentivizing corporations to send American jobs overseas, there will be a perception resulting from such deliberately harmful legislative practices.

What’s more, if African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans for 80 years, it may have something to do with the fact that throughout all of that time the Republicans have tried to suppress them by opposing the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and other measures aimed at insuring a more equal society. Even today the GOP has been fiercely fighting to impose obstacles to voting for minorities and other citizens they fear will vote against the GOP. Why on Earth would any of these disenfranchised Americans have a positive perception of Republicans?

Paul, it should be noted, is specifically among those who have advocated for policies harmful to African Americans. In an epic debate with Rachel Maddow he argued his position against parts of the Civil Rights Act, although he later denied he ever took such a position. This disparity is certain to come up again should Paul enter the primary for the GOP nomination for president in 2016, as many expect that he will.

So it is small wonder that the Republican Party brand sucks. It is more surprising that anyone might still hold it in high regard. But for Paul to carry this message as if he were positioned to fix the branding is ludicrous. And the notion that the GOP’s problems are merely related to perceptions, rather than substantive differences with their historical and current platform, is really just another example of why the party is so out of touch.


Jon Stewart “Welcomes” New Daily Show Advertiser: The Koch Brothers (Video)

Posted by on October 30, 2014 at 4:11 am. 1 Comments :

A couple of days ago while watching the Daily Show, I was struck by what seemed like an unusual commercial for this particular program. It was an image ad from Koch Industries that portrayed the pollution-spewing, anti-worker, right-wing corporation as neighborly shopkeepers that just want make the world brighter and happier. Given the audience composition of the Daily Show it was difficult to grasp what promotional goal the Kochs hoped to achieve.

Jon Stewart Koch Brothers

Well, Jon Stewart noticed the ad as well and was not content to let it go by without comment. And being Jon Stewart, the comment was hilarious. Plus it included a reworked version of the ad with a tag line that will reverberate across the InterTubes: “We’re Koch Industries – The next generation of robber barons bending the democratic process to our will since 1980.” Have a look.

Stewart managed to slam the Koch brothers for buying politicians, exacerbating climate change, poisoning tap water, and advancing their propaganda through academia. He even revealed their opposition to the minimum wage due to their lunatic notion that it would lead to Nazism. These are not generally the sort of things that a television program would say about one of its sponsors.

Stewart has to be given enormous credit for his courage and lack of self-interest in so mercilessly bashing a source of revenue. Perhaps the Koch brothers, and other propagandists seeking to engage in such brazen exploitation, will think twice about it in the future. Whatever benefit the Kochs hoped to gain by this ad strategy, they certainly lost many times over by daring to take advantage of Stewart’s viewers.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook


Fox News “Psycho” Analyst Gives Terrorists Justification To Attack Americans

Posted by on October 29, 2014 at 12:15 pm. 4 Comments :

The fanatical warhawks that routinely appear on Fox News have distinguished themselves by always managing to find new reasons to deploy military forces against perceived threats like ISIL, Iran, North Korea, Russia, immigrants, married gays, minority voters, or MSNBC. But now, for the first time, a Fox regular has advocated declaring war on any nation that isn’t sufficiently aligned with the American model of democracy.

Keith Ablow Jihad

The Fox News “psycho” analyst, “doctor” Keith Ablow has issued a call to arms that is international in scale and universally insane. His op-ed is titled “It’s time for an ‘American jihad'” and represents the worst of nationalistic supremacy and aspirations of world domination. He followed up the editorial with an appearance on Fox & Friends where his mania was eagerly lapped up.

By invoking the term “jihad’ Ablow is deliberately plugging into the controversial mission of many of the radical Islamic forces responsible for world terrorism. He openly admits that his definition of the term includes a “war or struggle against unbelievers” and “a crusade for a principle or belief.” So he regards it as proper for the United States to take action against other sovereign nations based solely on their having different beliefs than we do. And by calling it a “crusade” he seems to be utterly insensitive to the genocidal history associated with that word.

But Ablow’s rant has an even more dangerous impact on international terrorism. He is actually validating the reasons that terrorists have for declaring their jihad against the West. They have long argued that Western democracies are the aggressors and have ambitions to overrun their countries and suppress their people. Now Ablow is telling them that they’ve been right all along. Here is how he begins his tirade:

“An American jihad would reawaken in American citizens the certain knowledge that our Constitution is a sacred document that better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth.”

How different is that expression of superiority than the wild declarations of fundamentalist Muslims who insist that they have the spiritual authority from God to impose their theocracy on others. By referring to our Constitution as sacred, Ablow is flipping the debate from a political context to a holy war. He goes on to say that America has a “manifest destiny” to “spread around the world” our brand of government and to “insist on its reflection in every government.” In other words, global tyranny.

Ablow says that the world would be a better place if every country in it would only adopt the American way, and that his jihad would be aimed at working toward that end. His methods of achieving his goals include some profoundly disturbing notions.

First of all, he would have American children be indoctrinated with “feelings of pride in our democracy as superior to all other forms of government.” That, of course, would be contrary to the principles of free expression and critical thinking that requires good ideas to rise based on their merits.

Secondly, he would require that American aid be tied “slowly but inexorably, toward reflecting our Constitution.” That would exclude a large number of nations who are presently our allies, but worse, it would remove us from nations that we would hope to foster closer ties to. It would also transform our objectives for providing aid from humanitarian to purely political. That would only serve to drive potentially friendly countries farther away while discrediting our motives.

Thirdly, Ablow suggests using American funds to bankroll “an international mercenary force,” which is against international law. In addition to that he also proposes that our military take a role because we would have to “accept the fact that an American jihad could mean boots on the ground in many places in the world.” His justification for such missions is that “we have a God-given right to intervene.” Didn’t Osama Bin Laden say that?

Perhaps the looniest proposition offered in this supremely loony sermon is Ablow’s suggestion regarding what amounts to infiltration of foreign governments. He says that…

“We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders’ campaigns for office in these other nations.”

I wonder how Ablow would feel about other countries adopting that proposal toward the U.S. I wonder if he knows that it would violate our laws if another nation were to fund campaigns for American offices. So Ablow wants to force other countries to follow our laws while advocating that we violate them. I guess it’s OK for us because we’re ordained by God.

Finally, Ablow has to take a shot at President Obama because if he doesn’t he goes into severe withdrawal. He drools that…

“An American jihad would turn back and topple the terrible self-loathing in our citizens set in motion by President Obama.”

This is a regular theme in Ablow’s psychosis. He believes that Obama “has it in for America.” He is convinced that the President has an affinity for our enemies and hates his own country because his parents abandoned him, or were communists, or were victims of colonialism, or launched him into space from the dying planet Krypton. What’s more, Ablow believes that the American people are so gullible that they have succumbed to Obama’s hypnotic demands to hate themselves. Why else, other than self-loathing, would they have elected him to the highest office in the land twice?

Perhaps Ablow could be persuaded to leave the country for some derelict nation that hasn’t confessed its worship of America where he could run for office. I’m pretty sure he could get a significant amount of donations to advance his campaign if it meant he would not be spewing any more of these deranged theories and further polluting the public discourse here in the U.S.