Fox News Shrink Keith Ablow Offers His Psycho Analysis Of President Obama

Posted by on December 8, 2011 at 3:23 am. 6 Comments :

There is a lot of nonsense on Fox News. After all, this is the network that employs Dick Morris and Sarah Palin. It’s the network that brings in people like Jon Voight, Victoria Jackson, and Ted Nugent, to discuss serious matters of government and finance. But there may be no other Fox contributor that comes even close to the delusional lunacy of Dr. Keith Ablow.

Lou Dobbs hosted a segment of his Fox Business Network program that sought to explore President Obama’s identity crisis, wherein Ablow offered his typically twisted analysis of Obama’s psychological defects. The excrement that spews from his lips is so utterly perverse that I think I’ll just let it speak for itself:

“When you don’t have a core you’re able to slip the binding of your own existence and play other presidents.”

“Where’s the fire? Where’s the leadership? Why can’t we get anything done? Well, what if there’s nobody inside there other than the guy on GQ magazine on the cover?”

“If you go through enough abandonment, which this president has, if you are disenfranchised, you can cut yourself off from those feeling of rage and fire. That is all you can do to not disintegrate.”

“That’s why we’re adrift, Lou. Because there’s nobody in the White House, not really.”

“This is a president who captured the White House but considers himself different than us. OK? Quite different. And not sure at all that he liked us.”

“The whole reason the Birther movement came up is because people were flummoxed. They couldn’t figure out how can you be President of the United States and seem not to like the citizenry of the United States?”

“The answer is he doesn’t hate us. He simply isn’t there to hate or love. Because, guess what? Long ago he severed himself from all core emotions.”

There you have it. Obama is a phantom president whose own lack of emotion caused right-wing extremists and Tea Partiers to doubt his citizenship. And Ablow put forth these baseless theories in an embarrassingly childish performance that was peppered with repeated interruptions and pleas for attention.

Ablow is fond of pretending that he can psychoanalyze people who he has never examined or even met. That is a sign of certain quackery reminiscent of “doctor” Bill Frist’s pathetic attempt to diagnose the terminally ill and vegetative Terri Schiavo. What’s more, Ablow is in violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics (Section 7.3), which state:

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

Ablow’s unethical hackery fits well on the Fox airwaves, and his credentials suit the requirements of the so-called “news” network that has proudly cast off any semblance ethics. He is the co-author of a book with conspiracy schizoid Glenn Beck, who has tried his own hand at psychoanalyzing the President as well – with hilarious results.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that characters like this fill the schedule on Fox. Notwithstanding how easy Fox makes it look, it really is difficult to come up with consistently demented lies and insults of the “quality” that Fox has maintained. So perhaps we should cut them some slack if they have to resort to lowlifes like Ablow on occasion just to avoid having dead air.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Phony Fox News Course Correction

Posted by on December 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm. 1 Comments :

A couple of months ago Fox News CEO Roger Ailes told the Daily Beast that his network was undergoing an editorial realignment that he called a “course correction.” The implication was that Fox would cease to be the fiercely partisan propaganda outlet for which it has become so well known.

Well, that didn’t last long.

This morning Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio program and candidly announced his political biases while discussing the upcoming presidential election:

“We must win. I say ‘We’ – I’m a conservative, I’m a Republican. I say we must win”

Varney went on to declare that if Obama is reelected the country will be bankrupt in four years. Of course, Hannity agreed with everything Varney said. This is a pretty good example of the actual course that Fox intends to pursue. And the political beneficiaries of Fox’s agenda know full well what they can expect from their favorite network. Mitt Romney was interviewed by Neil Cavuto yesterday and testified on behalf of the network saying…

“I’ll be on Fox a lot, because you guys matter when it comes to Republican primary voters.”

Indeed they do. In just the past two months since the alleged course correction, Fox News has hosted Liz Cheney to accuse Obama of wanting the economy to fail. They invited Victoria Jackson to present her shrill theory that Obama is a communist. They have relentlessly broadcast numerous phony stories in an effort to tarnish the administration (i.e. fast and furious, climate researcher’s emails, a Christmas tree tax, etc.) And they have gone out of their way to misrepresent Obama’s public remarks, such as the fuss they made out of his using the word “lazy.” This week Fox didn’t even bother to broadcast all of Obama’s major economic speech in Kansas. They cut away from the speech about half way through in order to air an interview with GOP loser Michele Bachmann.

So if anyone has fallen for the fairy tale that Fox is moderating their extremist right-wing activism, they clearly are not paying attention to the barrage of hostility that continues to emanate from Murdoch’s media. The Fox empire has never been more offensive and unethical, even when they still had Glenn Beck’s ravings blasting the airwaves. If they have made any course correction at all, it is further to the right and in support of the GOP primary candidates. And given the sorry nature of that bunch, you would think that they’ve suffered enough embarrassment for the remainder of this year and next.


Obama’s Kansas Speech Owes A Debt To #Occupy Wall Street

Posted by on December 6, 2011 at 3:26 pm. 3 Comments :

President Obama traveled to the site of Teddy Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech in order to deliver an address on the economy. The most striking thing about the President’s remarks was the extent to which they appear to have been influenced by the Occupy movement. Obama segued from one assertion of economic inequality to another as he insisted that “in America, we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share.”

That is the call of the Occupiers in a nutshell. It is a campaign to restore fairness and justice and to take back control of the government from the wealthy special interests it has come to serve. If you missed the speech, I’ll save you twenty minutes by posting the one paragraph that summarizes the core of the message:

“Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”

Indeed, the Collective Amnesia Ward is overflowing with patients who not only are suffering from the malady, they want to infect every American with the disease. In fact, the only way that they can prevail next November is to spread the amnesiac virus beyond the community of conservative Republicans who are most susceptible to it. And if that one message is effectively communicated by the Obama reelection committee, the President will serve a second term.

On the other hand, the paragraph following the one above reiterated one of Obama’s most severe flaws. He still believes that there is a commonality of interest between his principles of inclusion and the Republican obsession with power. He believes that that by embracing a universal American togetherness the GOP will cease to demonize him and join the effort to rebuild the nation. It starts off well enough, but crashes and burns at the end.

“I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.”

To argue that the 1% and the 99% share common American values is evidence of a dangerous blind spot. What Obama is missing here, and what he has missed for the past three years, is that there is a massive chasm between Democratic and Republican values. Whereas Democrats aspire (at least rhetorically) to empower the middle-class, the Republicans freely admit that their top objective is destroy Obama. That simple truth ought to be enough to convince the President that he is not going to recruit any allies in the fight for fairness and economic renewal from the ranks of the establishment GOP.

To illustrate the determination of the right-wing to throw every available obstacle into Obama’s path, Fox News cut away from the speech about half way through. Apparently they wanted to protect their fragile viewers from this subversive philosophy. By tonight Fox will be castigating the speech as a paean to socialism owing to its praise for working together. And the pressing news that demanded the interruption of the President was that Megyn Kelly had an interview with Michele Bachmann, who has about as much chance of becoming the Republican nominee as Miss Piggy.

On the whole the speech was another validation of the Occupy movement. This speech would not have been written a year ago. The public debate has been utterly transformed in the two and a half months since an unruly rabble encamped in a park in Lower Manhattan. Today the Republicans are “frightened to death” of the prospect of average Americans ascending to the top of the political food chain. And the President of the United States of America gave a speech honoring the notion that “We still have a stake in each other’s success.”


Donald Trump’s Presidential Apprentice Primer

Posted by on December 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm. 2 Comments :

Donald Trump

Pretend billionaire and megalomaniac, Donald Trump is making the media rounds to prop up his Apprentice spin-off program: The Republican Presidential Primary Debate, or Presidential Apprentice. The announcement last week of this momentous event has been met with near universal yawns. Already two candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) have declined the invitation. The only candidate who has accepted to date is Newt Gingrich.

True to his character, Trump attacked Huntsman (who is in third place in New Hampshire polling) and Paul (who is in third place in Iowa polling) as joke candidates. If they were truly joke candidates, however, they would be headlining Trump’s circus. As it stands, only Gingrich is set to appear. That is most likely because the new front-runner is broke, has no staff, and desperately needs the free media that any public appearance provides.

Republican elders are dismissing Trump’s affair. George Will said that the candidates should be presidential and say that “we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this.” Karl Rove said that it’s absurd for any candidate to participate in a debate moderated by someone who is planning to make an endorsement and has hinted at running as an Independent. He further noted that “It’s gonna be a giant ego trip.”

Should anyone else decide to join Trump and Gingrich, they should be prepared for what they might encounter in a Trump-moderated debate. So I have compiled some of the subjects that Trump has championed in order that the candidates can familiarize themselves with his platform. Studying these areas of interest will give the debaters a leg up on their campaign for Trump’s affection:

1) Obama’s Citizenship: This is without a doubt the cornerstone of Trump’s political agenda. He talks about it at every appearance – including this morning on MSNBC, where he told Chuck Todd that he is still interested in this even if others are not. He has yet to reveal the findings of the security team he sent to Hawaii to investigate the matter.

2) Obama’s Religion: Despite the fact that the President has repeatedly affirmed his devout Christianity, Trump suspects that he is secretly a Muslim and the proof may be on his birth certificate. Never mind that any religious designation on a birth certificate would be irrelevant. Obviously the baby Barack did not select his faith, but the adult has been clear and consistent.

3) Obama’s Authorship: Trump has embraced the WorldNetDaily crackpots who believe that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father.” The evidence of this fraud is the observation that both used certain phrases like going “against the current.” Well, that settles that. Trump also believes that Obama was born Barry Soetoro and later changed his name, despite the fact that his step-father Lolo Soetoro didn’t marry Obama’s mother until he was four years old.

4) Obama’s Academics: Trump is fond of questioning Obama’s academic credentials, insisting that he was too stupid to get into Harvard. He says he is investigating this (are they the same investigators he sent to Hawaii?). Of course it is documented that Obama had graduated from Columbia before getting a scholarship to Harvard where he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.

5) Foreign Policy: Trump has advocated declaring a trade war with China. He also proposed addressing the deficit by stealing the oil from Libya and Iraq. This is the sort of bravado that Trump likes to display with his own business enterprises, which have resulted in four bankruptcies. In addition he has expressed support for an actual shooting war with both Iran and North Korea. However, with international relations between sovereign nations with standing armies, he may produce even worse outcomes than he has with his failing hotels and casinos.

6) Economic Policy: While he doesn’t have a 999 plan, Trump has proposed a tax increase that might inflame the sensitivities of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party:

“I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt. […] Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions.”

That actually sounds pretty good. Too bad he has disavowed that plan that appeared in his book, and now thinks he can appropriate billions of dollars from other countries to pay down our debt (he doesn’t say how).

This primer for the Trump debate should prepare the candidates to deal with the peculiar lunacy of the Trump vision for America. It would certainly be enlightening for voters to get a clearer perspective on these important matters.

However, there is a significant obstacle that might prevent this illuminating discourse from proceeding. It is highly probable that no one will show up but Gingrich. There really doesn’t seem to be much incentive to participate in a debate between Christmas and New Year’s Day that is hosted by charlatan whom polls show would harm the candidacies of anyone that he endorsed. With only three weeks to confirm, we’ll know pretty soon if there are others in the race who are as desperate as Newt. In a pinch Trump could always call Meatloaf or LaToya Jackson and see if they would be willing to sign on again.


Frank Luntz, The Fox News Word Doctor, Is Scared To Death Of #Occupy Wall Street

Posted by on December 4, 2011 at 11:04 am. 4 Comments :

Frank Luntz has been helping to distort the language of Republicans for decades. His specialty is developing dishonest phrases to replace accurate descriptions of social and political issues when the accurate descriptions produce negative impressions of conservatives and their unpopular agenda. And now…..

Frank Luntz Is Scared

Luntz created the term “death tax” as a substitute for “estate tax,” reasoning that it would be easier to steer low-information voters away from a tax on dying than a tax on people who own estates. He also supplied the term “government-run” to replace “public option” during the health care debate after determining that focus groups responded less favorably to the label that implied falsely that government would get between you and your doctor.

It is common to observe Luntz’s fabrications getting adopted by conservative politicians and media. He is a frequent presence on Fox News and has been cited as their main source for right-leaning rhetoric. He serves the same purpose for political clients, and in that role he just spoke at the Republican Governors Association to deliver an ominous warning:

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

Luntz is right to be afraid. The Occupy movement has taken hold of the American Dream and reminded citizens that they have a right to be heard on important issues that impact their lives. It has revealed that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of the goals of the Occupiers. It has reasserted the Constitutional and patriotic practice of free speech and the redress of grievances. These are principles that Luntz and his rightist patrons simply cannot abide.

Consequently, Luntz went to work to shape a new batch of linguistic contortions with which to befuddle naive FoxPods. The fruit of his fear is striking evidence of the success of the Occupy movement. Below are the specific suggestions Luntz gave to the GOP governors for what to say, and not to say, when talking about the Occupy movement. Pay attention, because these words and arguments are what will soon be cascading from the mouths of pundits and politicians on Fox News and other ring-wing media:

Out: Capitalism / In: Economic Freedom or Free Market
Luntz has concluded that, while Americans still prefer capitalism to socialism, any mention of it will stir thoughts of the misdeeds of Wall Street and bankers. Indeed, capitalism has suffered a PR setback in recent years and even ranks below progressivism in national polls. In a nod to the effectiveness of the Occupiers, Luntz now believes that to be seen as defending Wall Street is “a problem.” So the GOP can’t even admit that it favors capitalism for fear of losing support.

Out: Tax the Rich / In: Take from the Rich
Every poll shows that the country is in favor of making the wealthy pay their fair share. Even polls of millionaires reveal that they think their own taxes should be higher. So Luntz proposes a tweak in the hopes of producing language that sounds more sympathetic. Remove the “sym” and you have something more like the truth.

Out: Middle-Class / In: Hardworking Taxpayers
The right has obviously lost any appeal to all but the most fortunate in society. Luntz recognizes that there is little to gain by courting the middle-class so he has invented a new term that he believes people can relate to without actually defining it. The problem is that taxpayers that actually do work hard won’t be fooled by this rouse into thinking they are members of the One-Percent whose lives of leisure are supported by GOP policies.

Out: Jobs / In: Careers
This may be the most brazen deceit on the list. Luntz asked his audience of Republican governors whether they wanted a job or a career. After few hands were raised for the former, and many for the latter, Luntz summed up asking, “So why are we talking about jobs?” He should try asking his questions in the parking lot of a Target Store rather than to sitting governors and their staff. He might get a different response and may even learn why so many Americans are talking about jobs.

Out: Government Spending / In: Waste
This is a transparent effort to associate anything having to do with government as wasteful and unnecessary. I assume he means to disparage government spending on things like Social Security, interstate highways, veteran’s benefits, law enforcement, public schools, child services, water, air, and food safety, and national security, which is, by far, the largest chunk of the federal budget. By all means, let’s stop wasting money.

Out: Compromise / In: Cooperate
In today’s Republican party compromise is seen as weakness. Luntz asserts that it amounts to “selling out [your] principles.” He also admits that cooperation means the same thing, but doesn’t have the sting of compromise. The GOP may not have been using Luntz’s phrasing, but they have definitely been acting on the concept. This session of Congress has had more filibusters than any in history as Republicans refuse to compromise. The fact that they are more committed to the failure of this administration than they are to the success of the nation has been apparent to the public, which is why Luntz and the GOP have to resort to this sort of word play.

Out: Umm… / In: I get It
Here Luntz is just offering his version of a patronizing statement to mollify an angry electorate. Luntz told his audience of governors, “Here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.” Unfortunately for Luntz & Co. the electorate knows that’s a lie. They know that Republicans don’t really get it and neither do they have any solutions.

Out: Entrepreneur / In: Job Creator
I think this must have something to do with sounding too French. Republicans have a long record of pretending to support entrepreneurship, but Luntz must have detected a derogatory connotation that wasn’t there previously. He must also have detected a problem with the word “innovator” because he also advises against its use. However, the GOP has already been using “job creator” as a substitute for “rich,” so they will be forced to find a new label for the one-percent. How about “the One-Percent?”

Out: Sacrifice / In: In This Together
The logic behind this twist is that is that the word “sacrifice” allegedly evokes a negative feeling that is shared by all. The problem with that logic is that the rich have not yet been asked to sacrifice anything. So, in reality, Luntz just wants to excise the word because it only applies to the subset of Americans who are already suffering and to whom the GOP are least likely to appeal. Raising the specter of sacrifice only dredges up harsh feeling amongst the middle-class…I mean hard working Americans…when juxtaposed with the rich…I mean job creators.

Shared Sacrifice

Out: Wall Street / In: Washington
This capsulizes the whole problem for Luntz and the right. He knows that Wall Street is correctly seen as the perpetrator of much of the country’s current ills. He knows that associating with Big Finance will sink the prospects of any politician. And he knows that success for the Upper-Crusters he represents depends on fingering another villain. Ironically, the villains he suggests are the very people and institutions that he represents in DC. If he is going to mount a “blame Washington” campaign it has to include the Republican denizens of the capital who, more than anyone else, handed over control of the economy to the Wall Street hoodlums who promptly shattered it.

With the collapse of the Tea Party, the financial elite are girding for a fight. A recently disclosed memo revealed a scheme to launch a propaganda campaign against the Occupy movement to be funded by $850,000 from the American Bankers Association. The lobbyists behind this effort include former staff members of House Speaker John Boehner. The ties between the Banksters and political power brokers are as strong as ever.

The inescapable truth that emerges from Luntz’s presentation is that the Occupy movement has been a phenomenal success. In a little over two months it has captured the imagination of a weary populace who now see a path to redemption. It has flipped the national conversation from one of a phony debt crisis to one focused squarely on economic inequities and the abuse of corporate power in the political arena. And now it has resulted in one of the most satisfying accomplishments of all: It has Fox News’ Word Doctor, and likely all of his clients and colleagues, scared to death. Hopefully they will be just scared enough to start doing the right thing for the 99% of Americans who have had to wait too long for the restoration of fairness and justice.

[Here is an infographic version of the content of this article suitable for sharing on Facebook, Twitter, etc.]


Newt Gingrich Slams Poor Children – Again

Posted by on December 1, 2011 at 4:18 pm. 5 Comments :

Last week Newt Gingrich floated a ludicrous plan to fire union janitors at schools (putting them on the unemployment rolls and devastating their families) and replacing them with school children. The brilliance of this plan is that, while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies. And of course the children of folks in Gingrich’s class would have no such impediments to their education.

Not content with declaring child labor laws “truly stupid,” this week Gingrich compounded his absurdity and insensitivity by insulting the children that he hopes to put to work scrubbing toilets.

“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.

“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it is illegal,” he added.

This is the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president saying that the children of the working poor have only lazy or criminal influences in their lives. Their parents are either bums or crooks.

Obviously Gingrich has never set foot in a poor neighborhood. Had he done so he would have met people who not only show up for work, they do it at multiple jobs. Gingrich has no concept of what it means to struggle to provide for his family. He makes $60,000 to give a half hour speech, yet he maligns poor people as having “no habit of staying all day.” And he spent decades in Congress where they almost never show up on Monday (or Friday either) and take several weeks off every year.

To insinuate that poor families who earn money do so only through illegal activities is not only wrong, it belies a measure of hypocrisy that is monumental. Remember, it was Gingrich who was cast out of Congress in disgrace after having been reprimanded for misusing tax-exempt funds and being fined $300,000. Someone as ethically challenged as Gingrich has no business maligning the integrity of others. Particularly those about whom he has absolutely no knowledge.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

New Yorkers Paying $500,000 A Year To Protect Fox News

Posted by on December 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm. NO Comments :

In another example of the 1% bilking the general public out of money that ought to be used for the public’s benefit, the Daily Beast is reporting that Fox News gets special protection from the New York Police Department courtesy of New York taxpayers.

“[D]own at Rupert’s News Corp. headquarters on Sixth Ave.–which has never been a terrorist or protest target of any significance–the media empire is guarded by a 24-hour-a-day New York Police Department security detail seven days a week, a patrol that one security expert estimated costs the city at least half a million dollars a year. No other news network gets comparable NYPD protection.”

The article goes on to attribute the all-consuming paranoia of Fox CEO Roger Ailes as a possible explanation for the extraordinary security. But the optics of an enterprise owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch billing a cash-strapped metropolis for security they ought to be paying for themselves is an embarrassment and an outrage. At a time when the NYPD is staffed at near record lows, somebody at the department, or in city government, has decided to redeploy officers from serving and protecting the people of New York to babysitting a wealthy corporation that can afford to take care of itself.

Is this really a wise use of scarce law enforcement resources? Does Fox News deserve protection that no other network receives? Is there an unhealthy relationship between Murdoch, the NYPD, and Michael Bloomberg? These are just a few of the questions that need to be asked at the next city council meeting. And while they are at it, somebody ought to ask why Fox News goes berserk over the cost of policing legal protests by Occupy Wall Street while they are draining public funds for no good reason.


Newt Gingrich Admits That Fox News Analysts Don’t Know What They’re Talking About

Posted by on December 1, 2011 at 1:23 am. 1 Comments :

If there is one thing that Newt Gingrich knows about, it is what Fox News analysts know. He was, after all, a Fox News analyst himself. So it is with direct personal experience that Gingrich reveals that…

“One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”

With that succinct comment Gingrich acknowledges that he didn’t know what he was talking about during his many appearances on Fox, and that there was no requirement for such knowledge to be an analyst on Fox. That explains why so much of the analysis on Fox is so wrong so often and why there are so many notably unknowledgeable people on the network.

However, in keeping with his history of ignorance, Gingrich clearly does not know what he is talking about when he says that presidential candidates have to know what they are talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the GOP primary debates know that that isn’t true.


Paranoia Runs Deep: Fox News Fears Sinister White House Renovations

Posted by on November 30, 2011 at 10:46 am. 2 Comments :

In a never ending effort to scare the bejesus out of their glassy-eyed congregation, Fox New is now speculating that President Obama is building something nefarious under the White House lawn:

Fox Nation

Oh my. What ever could it be? The suggestion that it might be a bunker is obviously a rouse because the White House already has an underground bunker (Dick Cheney famously hid out there after 9/11). Maybe it’s a lab where they are attempting to reanimate Karl Marx. Perhaps they are moving the classified artifacts from Area 51 to Washington. Could it be a secret prison to hold Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann? Just think of the unholy experiments they could conduct on them.

Whatever it is, we should be dreadfully frightened. Obama is, after all, the Anti-Christ plotting to launch an Apocalyptic holocaust. We must ignore the facts that have already been revealed about this mysterious project. We can’t trust facts. As Stephen Colbert has advised us, facts have a well-known liberal bias. It is our patriotic duty to presume that the most outlandish conspiracies are behind everything that emerges from the Obama White House. What else can we do when we have a Muslim from Kenya steering the nation toward communism? Take heed, America.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: On McDonald’s Un-Happy Meals

Posted by on November 30, 2011 at 3:01 am. 7 Comments :

Last year the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law that would require restaurants serving children’s meals to meet specific nutritional standards if they also contain free toys. The law is an attempt to promote healthier options for kids who are increasingly suffering from obesity and diabetes due to poor diets, often provided by fast food chains like McDonald’s.

The law is set to take effect Thursday, December 1. However, the McDonald’s franchise operators in the city have decided to skirt the law rather than comply with it. That news was met with glee by Fox Nation.

Fox Nation

The first problem with the Fox Nation headline, “McDonald’s Outsmarts San Francisco on Happy Meal Ban,” is that there never was a Happy Meal ban. The Fox Nationalists typically engaged in dishonest hyperbole. All restaurants are permitted under the law to serve the very same children’s fare they have served all along. They merely could not use free toys as enticements to impressionable kids. Studies have proven the harmful effect of advertising and promotional giveaways on children. The Stanford University School of Medicine conducted research that found that “advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products.”

In order to comply with the new law’s criteria, restaurants were asked to reduce the fat, salt and sugar in children’s meals and offer more fruits and vegetables. But rather than do the responsible thing by modifying the content of their so-called Happy Meals, the McDonald’s proprietors chose to make customers pay an extra 10 cents for the toy, thus adhering to the stipulation that the toys not be included for free. That is a demonstration of their commitment to profit over the health and well-being of their customers. They say that the extra ten cents will be used to help build a new Ronald McDonald House to temporarily house families with sick children. And, conveniently, their practices will insure a steady supply of sick children to populate the new facility.

Despite the intransigence of the local SF franchises, the national office of McDonald’s has already announced plans to reduce the portion size of French fries and add apple slices to its children’s meals. This news might cause Fox to withhold their support for McDonald’s. That would be more in line with their past. A couple of years ago McDonald’s launched a web site to serve the African American community. The onslaught of vile, racist comments that ensued from the Fox Nationalists was repulsive in the extreme.

Once again, Fox is on the wrong side of reality, decency, and common sense. They unabashedly lie to their audience while championing corporate disrespect for the public. It is just this sort of ill behavior that has caused me to ask: What’s the difference between Fox News and McDonald’s? One sells cheap crap with lots of filler & seasoning to masses with no taste. The other is a fast food restaurant.