Fox News Headline: That Drowned Syrian Boy On The Beach Is Obama’s Fault

The list of things that are Obama’s fault just keeps getting longer. You have to wonder how he has managed to get so much done in so short a time. After all, conservatives have blamed Obama for everything from riots in Ferguson, MO, to California’s drought, to Ebola, to Hurricane Katrina (No, really). And that happened three years before he was inaugurated. He is to blame for high gas prices that hurt consumers, as well as for low gas prices that hurt oil companies. They blame him for increased immigration (which has actually gone down), and for the rising number of abortions (which are declining).

It really doesn’t matter what the subject is. Conservatives will spin it as evidence of America’s doom and blame Obama for it. And if you need another example, look no further than Fox News, where today they ran a story with the headline “That Drowned Syrian Boy On The Beach Is Obama’s Fault.” Because, of course it is.

Fox News Obama

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson is the one assigning the blame on this occasion. He has to stretch mightily to justify his ludicrous opinion that the responsibility for the death of a child refugee from Syria rests on the President’s shoulders. He does this by twisting the facts beyond all recognition and inventing motives that aren’t supported by reality. The sad story began when the boy’s family, along with thousands of others, fled the oppression and atrocities perpetrated by ISIS in Syria. Erickson viewed that situation as the “direct result” of Obama’s alleged pride and cowardice.

Erickson: “ISIS only became a thing when the White House, out of pride and arrogance, decided it was better to placate the left by withdrawing all troops from Iraq rather than help the Iraqis maintain their stability.

“A young boy has died, washed up on the shores of Europe. His picture has shocked the world and his death is direct result of Barack Obama fleeing the Middle East, tail tucked between his leg, so he could pridefully say he ended a war he never wanted.

“The boy is dead because Barack Obama chose to abdicate American leadership in the world.”

Apparently Erickson either doesn’t know, or is deliberately lying, about the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The truth is that a “Status of Forces Agreement” was negotiated by the administration of George W. Bush that called for complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. The Obama administration attempted to extend the agreement, but the Iraqis were opposed to any extension so Bush’s deadline was carried out.

Since the withdrawal date was not chosen by Obama, it can hardly be attributed to him as placating the left or resulting from his pride and arrogance. He didn’t “flee” the Middle East. He complied with the binding agreement of his White House predecessor. If Erickson is looking for someone to accuse of abdicating leadership, then he should be looking at Bush.

Furthermore, Erickson’s insinuation that Obama was responsible for the rise of ISIS is just as faulty as his understanding of international treaties. Many of the soldiers who formed ISIS were former officials and military operatives of Saddam Hussein’s Bath Party. They were only available to start their radical Islamic army because Bush’s operatives in Iraq prohibited them from having any role in the new Iraqi government. That move turned them into rebels who eventually aligned with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Erickson argued that the destabilization of Iraq that led to much of the region’s turmoil was Obama’s fault, even though one of the reasons that Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start was the risk of destabilization. So Erickson was wrong about Iraq. He was wrong about the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. He was wrong about the beginnings of ISIS. He also failed to note that the dead child was not from Iraq, but was a refugee from Syria, where they were having problems of their own.

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

Nevertheless, Erickson flatly stated that “That little boy would not have died had Barack Obama stood strong in Iraq. […] That dead child is Barack Obama’s fault.” But that opinion is so much more than merely wrong. It is contrary to the facts. It is slander against Obama. It is absolution to ISIS, the real perpetrators of so much death and misery. And it is perversely exploitative of a tragic loss of innocent life. However, it is exactly the sort of despicable smear campaign that Erickson, and his comrades on the right, and Fox News, have been engaging in for at least the last seven years.

The Republican Guide To Assessing Donald Trump’s Verbal Vomit

With each new day it seems there is another intemperate remark flowing from the sewer that is Donald Trump’s mouth. The latest toxic spill involves Trump’s repugnant comment disparaging Fox News anchor, and debate moderator, Megyn Kelly saying that “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.”

Donald Trump

Trump’s thinly veiled suggestion that Kelly’s menstrual cycle bore responsibility for the questions she asked was both childish and sexist. And his assertion that blood was “coming out of her eyes,” or elsewhere, was not nearly as disgusting as the feculence that comes out of his mouth.

Not that Kelly is a paragon of feminist virtue. From the start of her Fox News gig she has exploited her womanly charms. As her star ascended she was interviewed by GQ magazine complete with sultry photos. And when GQ asked her why she sat behind a glass table that showed off her legs, she said that “It’s a visual business. People want to see the anchor.” Which explains why Bill O’Reilly wears those low-cut blouses. But Kelly’s willingness to market her own allure doesn’t make her fair game for neanderthals like Trump.

Up until now Trump has avoided any real consequences for his thuggery. But there have already been some serious repercussions for Trump’s latest display of rank incivility. Erick Erickson, whose RedState organization is sponsoring a conservative conference today, has uninvited Trump from the event which features several other GOP candidates. Erickson, it should be noted, is a notorious misogynist whose language frequently crosses the lines of decency. This is the same guy who called former Supreme Court Justice David Souter a goat-f*cking child molester.” And he is offended by Trump?

There is also news that a senior Trump advisor has either resigned or been fired, depending on which slimeball you believe. Either way, Roger Stone is no longer working on Trump’s campaign. Stone is a Fox News contributor and a proud Republican dirty-trickster who founded an anti-Clinton organization called “Citizens United Not Timid,” or C.U.N.T. And he is offended by Trump?

Apparently there is a need for a more detailed guide to evaluating the bullsh*t that is such an integral part of the Trump campaign and persona. So News Corpse has put together this handy reference for confused Wingnuts, Teabaggers, and Fox News viewers:


  • Insulting Fox News darling Megyn Kelly.

Got it? Follow this simple guide and you can’t go wrong when sinking to the lowest depths of human behavior. It remains to be seen if Trump will suffer any long-term harm from this loathsome episode. He may just get another pass, because his noxious attitude is generally regarded as appealing in the Republican Party. They truly are, as they like to remind everyone, revolting.

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

Racists At Fox News Whine About Being Called Racists By Obama (Which He Didn’t Do)

The repugnant race baiters of the right have made it their mission to define anyone who alleges racism as instigators of civil disorder, promoters of racial division, and, in a display of epic hypocrisy, as racists themselves. It doesn’t matter how obvious the occurrence of bias, it can’t possibly be credible to the bigot apologists who believe that racism ended when valiant white saviors freed the slaves a hundred and fifty years ago. And these racism deniers came out in force following Obama’s appearance at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

WHCD Obama/Luther

Leading the pack are the hate-mongers on the Fox News community website, Fox Nation, where they recently featured a story about why “We Must Destroy ‘The Black Community'” With a headline like that it hardly matters what the substance of the article says (it argued, wrongly, that there is no need for any communities of commonality), the point is made to an audience that eats up openly hateful messages. They have abandoned their dog whistles for bullhorns.

In a continuance of this ugly messaging, Fox Nation served up another headline reading “If Only President Obama Weren’t Black.” The author is Erick Erickson, one of the most hostile promulgators of prejudice in the media, and a Fox News contributor. The opening paragraph of the article, that is ostensibly a critique of President Obama’s comedy routine at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, says…

“Over the weekend, most of the worst people in the world gathered together in Washington, D.C. as a circle of jerks to sing each other’s praises. Sadly, there was no Samson to tear down the columns and collapse the roof on the Philistines of Washington. But there was a President of the United States willing to make jokes about the ‘F-word’ and an Imperial Court to worship him.”

Notice how Erickson begins the paragraph by making a sexual reference to “circle jerks” (slang for group masturbation), and ending with his sudden, and oh-so moral, offense to Obama making jokes about the “f-word.” Erickson is the cretin who once called retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter a goat-fucking child molester,” so we know his objections to profanity are sincere.

The thrust of this article is Erickson’s contention that Obama “assume[s] the opposition to him is because of his race.” But nowhere in the article does Erickson provide evidence that Obama holds that view. The entire premise stems from the part of Obama’s address where Keegan-Michael Key portrays Luther, Obama’s anger translator. It is important to note here that the character is NOT Obama’s “black” anger translator. However, that adjective was inserted by Erickson to color his tirade against the President. It is his attempt to fuel the racist stereotype of the angry black man.

For the rest of the article Erickson rattles off a list of political issues that he asserts are unpopular, and then he infers that Obama regards them as such because of his race. Everything about that is flat out wrong. Many of the issues (e.g. a nuclear deal with Iran, ObamaCare) are not unpopular at all. And to the extent that a minority of Americans may oppose them, Obama has never suggested that their opposition was racially based. That is an invention of the right and of Erickson’s own bigotry. Erickson goes on to declare that…

“If only President Obama weren’t black, maybe he would realize that people don’t dislike him because he is black, they dislike him because he is a self-absorbed ass.”

There’s some more proof of Erickson’s moral superiority and objection to profane incivility. But more to the point, by suggesting that Obama’s perspective would be different if he were not black, Erickson is contradicting his whole premise. He is, in fact, asserting that being black is inherently significant and has a critical impact on the affairs at hand. So his argument that race shouldn’t enter into it is in tatters by his own admission. And, by the way, Erickson’s theory is that Obama would have a much better assessment of the matter if he were white, because, you know…

While Obama himself has not blamed racism for the opposition he has faced for the last six years, it has always been a primary motivator of many of his critics. The birther controversies, the allegations of Muslim faith, the false associations with Black Panthers and other radicals, the talk of reparations, the accusations of treason and complicity with our enemies, and the depictions by Tea Party signs of Obama as an ape or tribal witch doctor, are just a few of the representations that have flooded the anti-Obama mediasphere.

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

The Fox News racists are so obsessed with the notion of being called out for their racism that they are now inventing occurrences of it. No, the President did not inject racism into this discussion. But yes, his critics, like Erickson are profoundly racist. And the advice that I keep giving them (though they never seem to listen) is: If you don’t like being called a racist, stop being racist. It really is that simple.

Fox News Editorial Calls Men “The New Second Class Citizens”

In the twisted universe that Fox News has been working so feverishly to construct, whites are the only victims of racism, education is hurting our children, there isn’t enough carbon in the atmosphere, and now, men are second class citizens who are oppressed by a society that inhibits their freedom and disparages their character.

War on WomenNever mind that men control virtually every powerful institution in America. In the Forbes 500 list of top corporations there are only 18 women CEOs. Women hold only 18.3% of the 535 seats in Congress. Of the 772 full-time judges in the U.S. District Court and Courts of Appeal, just 30.4% are women. A mere 25% of colleges have female presidents. Women continue to get less pay for the same work as men. And predominately male politicians are legislating decisions that ought to be left to women, their families, and their doctors.

Yet somehow Suzanne Venker of Fox News has concluded that it is men who are being short-changed by society. This is an opinion that she has articulated many times before in Fox News editorials and in books published by the Wingnut Supremos at WorldNetDaily. Her first article for Fox was titled “The War On Men,” where she argued that the battle of the sexes was all the woman’s fault. Then she wrote that “‘Submission’ Is Not A Dirty Word,” it only demonstrates that you trust your partner. Her article “What Men Want,” lamented the decline in women who took pride in taking care of their man. The persistent theme in her views is that women ought to be happy to be subservient to men.

In her latest column Venker continues to berate society for its conspicuous favoritism towards women and prejudice against men. She begins by asserting that…

“The most obvious proof is male bashing in the media. It is rampant and irrefutable. From sit-coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot to biased news reports about the state of American men.”

Venker doesn’t offer any documentation of her claim that male bashing in the media is irrefutable, mainly because there isn’t any. Sure, there are a few representations of dads in sit-coms who are less than competent. But it doesn’t come any near the way that media portrays women as sex objects, bimbos, screw-ups, and bitches. What’s more, who are the media honchos who are producing these characterizations? Overwhelmingly men. So even to the minimal extent that men endure unflattering images, it is men who are providing them. It is also men who are providing the much more common unflattering images of women. But worse, Venker complains that the media makes too big a deal out of the mistreatment of women.

“[The media] would rather feed off stories that paint women as victims. And in so doing, they’ve convinced America there’s a war on women.”

Aside from her disturbing dismissal of the very real problems women face as victims of both discrimination and violence, Venker has utterly misconstrued the notion of the “war on women.” It has nothing to do with a literal war that involves casualties. It is a reference to the social and legal assaults on women’s rights in the workplace, in the courts, in the home, and particularly with regard to making personal decisions about their own bodies. These are concepts that seem foreign to Venker who seriously contends that it is men whose welfare is in jeopardy. This was expressed explicitly when she said…

“Yet it is males who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.”

I’m going to just let that hang there and sink in. It is so steeped in delusion that it needs no response. Venker’s perverse sympathy for the beleaguered “White American Male” says so much more about her, and her detachment from reality, than anything I could muster.

And isn’t it appropriate that Fox News provided Venker with this platform? It’s a network that features notably misogynistic male anchors and contributors, balanced by an army of blondes with no journalism credentials. In fact, just this week Fox promoted one sexy blonde with no reporting background to primetime, and replaced her in the daytime slot with a former Miss America. As for misogyny, Fox’s Erick Erickson just tweeted this after the nation’s most severely anti-choice bill was passed in Texas: “Dear liberals, go bookmark this site now.” The link he posted was to a site where you can buy coat hangers. That reference to the tragic past when women died during illegal abortions is about as disgusting as it gets.

Scandal Fever Is Making Fox News Even More Demented Than Usual

It must be a terrible burden to have to manage as many trumped up scandals as Fox News is currently struggling with. The sheer volume of fabricated nonsense to manufacture and inventory would be a strain on any propaganda outfit. But the pressure is showing now as Fox appears unable to function under the weight of the task. Take a look at these recent schizoid episodes they have belched out:

On the Fox Business Network, their anchor Lou Dobbs hosted a panel to discuss the state of women in the workplace and the results of a new poll that shows more American women are the primary earners in their families. In order to have a balanced debate on this subject, Fox invited only men to participate. But after you hear what one of those men said, you’ll understand why women weren’t necessary:

Fox News Breadwinners

Erick Erickson: I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend [the increase in women earners] and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role.

Consequently, Fox is committed to having only males weigh in on the subjects of working women, reproductive rights, domestic violence, etc. And remember, Erickson is the miscreant who once called Supreme Court Justice David Souter a “goat-fucking child molester.”

Next up is a story Fox did about the number of times Douglas Shulman, the IRS commissioner, visited the White House. Of Course, there should be nothing suspicious about a critical economic adviser spending time with other administration officials as they seek to restore the nation’s economy. But like everything else they do, Fox is only focused on turning this into a nefarious scheme of some sort. So they tally up the number of visits and imply that the frequency represents something other than devotion to duty:

Fox News White House Visitors

Unfortunately for Fox, their own source, the notoriously disreputable Daily Caller (which is run by Fox contributor Tucker Carlson) contradicts the very premise they sought to prove. After making a federal case out of the visits attributed to Shulman, the Daily Caller correctly notes that…

“The visitor logs do not give a complete picture of White House access. Some high-level officials get cleared for access and do not have to sign in during visits […] it is probable that the vast majority of visits by major Cabinet members do not end up in the public record.”

In other words…never mind. We don’t know what the heck we’re talking about. Which is surprising because this isn’t the first time that right-wing media tried to build these logs into a conflagration and failed to ignite any sparks. Back in 2009 there was an effort to tie the President to ACORN by reporting that ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis had visited the White House a few weeks before that phony scandal erupted. As it turned out, it was a different Bertha Lewis, but nobody at Fox or their source (Breitbart News) bothered to verify the information. In fact, we still don’t know if the Douglas Shulman on the logs is the IRS commissioner.

Finally, the most disturbing evidence that Fox is suffering severe symptoms of dementia was demonstrated in this segment of Fox & Friends when the hosts interviewed John Bolton about why National Security Adviser Tom Donilon was AWOL on the night of the attacks in Benghazi. They stated flatly that Donilon was absent for the crisis, even while they showed a photo alongside Bolton of a White House meeting that clearly included Donilon.

Fox News Donilon

This is pretty much what we can expect from Fox News for the duration of this scandal season. They are obviously over their heads and unable to steer a steady course. They either need some extended rest or a significant increase in the dosage of their meds. This should at least provide a lesson to them for the future: Don’t make up more scandals than you are capable of handling.

The First Refuge of Scoundrels: How Fox News Recruits From Reporting’s Worst Rejects

Journalism is a competitive field and the best and the brightest are highly valued assets by reputable news enterprises. And then there’s Fox News.

Tucker Carlson

No other “news” organization so aggressively hires the refuse cast off from other media employers. It must be a great comfort for wayward reporters and pundits to know that if they should violate the standards of ethics and/or decency demanded of them, they will always have somewhere to turn for sympathy and a fat paycheck, not to mention an undiscriminating audience.

For so many fallen television personalities, Fox News has been a support system that promises them a steady career path and a future that, in the past, would have meant well-deserved humiliation and disgrace. For these folks Fox was their white knight who stepped forward to whitewash their professional sins.

Pat Buchanan: The author of notoriously bigoted books like “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” Buchanan was released from his contract with MSNBC after he wrote that as a result of “the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color […] whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.” He then complained that he was a victim of blacklisting by a coalition of blacks, gays, and Jews, before being swept up by Fox.

Juan Williams: A veteran correspondent for National Public Radio, Williams went astray when he confessed that “when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Williams failed to see the inherent racism in his commentary and refused to apologize. Shortly after NPR relieved him of his duties there, Fox signed him to a new multimillion dollar contract.

Judith Miller: In the lead-up to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, New York Times reporter Judith Miller coordinated with the administration to make the case for war. Her articles gave credibility to fabricated allegations that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. Eventually her distortions were revealed and the Times sent her packing. And where else but Fox would have welcomed her with such open arms?

Erick Erickson: Following the election in November of 2012, many news outlets resolved to reexamine their operations and staff. At CNN they concluded that there was no longer a place for an ultra-conservative blogger who once called Supreme Court Justice David Souter a “goat-fucking child-molester.” Fox was also undergoing a self-examination and decided that Erickson was just what they were looking for.

Rick Sanchez: Not satisfied with calling Jon Stewart a bigot in a radio interview, Sanchez elaborated by falling back on the well-worn anti-Semitic theme of Jews controlling the media. “[E]verybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart,” Sanchez said, “and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they – the people in this country who are Jewish – are an oppressed minority? Yeah.” Today Sanchez is a correspondent with Fox News Latino and MundoFox. Ironically, Sanchez once castigated Latinos who worked for Fox as “sell-outs,” and Fox responded by saying that “Everyone knows that Rick is an industry joke, he shows that he’s a hack everyday. And he doesn’t have to worry about working at FOX because we only hire talent who have the ability to generate ratings.”

Mark Fuhrman: A regular crime analyst on Fox, Fuhrman may be better known as the disgraced former Los Angeles police officer who upended the O.J. Simpson trial by falsely testifying that he had never used racist epithets. That sort of behavior, however, is not a problem for the editorial bosses at Fox.

Doug McKelway: A familiar face in Washington, D.C., McKelway anchored a local news broadcast until he drew complaints for having told a gay activist he was interviewing that he wanted to take him outside and punch him in the face. That episode capped a rocky tenure during which he often fought with producers over his perception that the station’s broadcasts were too liberal. He doesn’t have that problem anymore now that he is a correspondent at Fox.

Lou Dobbs: This long-time CNN anchor was ostensibly CNN’s financial expert. Somewhere along the way he assumed the role of an immigrant basher and a proponent of the racist notion that all terrorists are Muslim. And to sweeten the pot, Dobbs joined the Birther Brigade by repeatedly demanding that President Obama produce his “real” birth certificate. In retrospect, it seems like Dobbs was positioning himself for future work at Fox News.

Oliver North: Here’s an oldie but a goodie. Col. North was convicted of lying to congress about President Reagan’s arms-for-hostages affair. While the conviction was later overturned by an appellate court that ruled that North’s testimony had been immunized, the underlying facts were not in question. North’s confession to a host of illegal acts was not a hindrance to his becoming a host on Fox News.

Don Imus: What can be said about the guy who was fired for calling a group of women on a college basketball team “nappy-headed hos?” Fox calls him the anchor of the morning block on their financial network.

Tucker Carlson: Perhaps the poster child for Fox’s Disgraced Reporter Rescue Program is Tucker Carlson, who has managed to fail on CNN, PBS, and MSNBC before receiving salvation from Fox. And like Sanchez, Carlson once held Fox in low esteem calling them “a mean, sick group of people,” after they published his home phone number on the Fox web site. But when Carlson was jettisoned from MSNBC he worked his way back into the good graces of Fox as the editor of The Daily Caller blog, then as a Fox contributor, and now the co-host of the weekend edition of Fox & Friends.

This pattern of staff development by Fox relies heavily on applicants (or, in the case of Sanchez and Carlson, supplicants) with proven histories of impropriety. They seem to regard the discards of other networks as their richest vein of new talent. And if the prospect has any lingering felonies on their rap sheet, all the better. The frequency with which Fox acquires ethically-challenged employees belies any suggestion that it is mere coincidence. They are clearly drawn to the reportorial riffraff and regard moral defects as badges of honor.

Consequently, if anyone is interested in handicapping the next batch of Fox contributors, just check to see who has been recently terminated at some other news outlet or paroled from prison. And if their offense involved an injury to a liberal policy or person, double down, you’ve got a sure thing.

The Anti-Constitutional, Christo-cratic Case Against Marriage Equality

With the Supreme Court’s deliberations on a pair of marriage equality cases last week, more and more right-wing “Christo-crats” are affirming their faith-based opposition to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. And increasingly, those affirmations are taking the form of inadvertent admissions that marriage is not within the purview of the state to decide. It is constitutionally impermissible for courts to rule for or against specific religious dogma.

God's Law

Nevertheless, That is exactly what the martinets of virtue on the right are advocating. For example, former CNN contributor Dana Loesch wrote an editorial that appeared on both RedState and the lie-riddled Fox Nation that sought to refute the notion that marriage equality is a conservative position. She insists that it is not, and that…

“Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. […] In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman.”

Loesch does not bother to reveal where in God’s Dictionary the definition of marriage occurs, nor does she reveal where one can pick up a copy of God’s Dictionary. If she is referencing passages in the Bible, then she is conveniently excluding from God’s definition those pious Biblical figures who maintained multiple (sometimes hundreds of) wives. Likewise she leaves out God’s mandate that rapists be forced to marry their victims. But more to the point, she is admitting that marriage is a construct of religion and, therefore, it is unconstitutional for the state to have a hand in it – except, in her view, so far as Christian-approved nuptials are concerned.

That same doctrine was addressed by Breitbart’s John Nolte in a column accusing the media of trying to destroy religion. That’s the same media that just completed endless hours of blanket coverage of the selection of a new Pope; the same media whose Christmas specials preempt everything else on the air. Nolte argues that recognition of the right for same-sex couples to marry would improperly impose on the right to religious freedom for Christians who regard such behavior as sinful. But if the religious freedom of Christians is violated every time something they regard as a sin is allowed under the law, that would make premarital sex unconstitutional [not to mention lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. By that measure, the Constitution would require the dissolution of Congress] Nolte says that he is in favor of civil unions, but…

“I oppose same-sex marriage because marriage is a sacrament, and there is a big difference between asking one to be tolerant, and demanding one condone.”

Once again we have an evangelical conservative admitting that his opposition is based on spiritual grounds. And once again, that would make it an invalid argument so far as the Constitution is concerned. They simply cannot assert that something is subject to legal prohibition because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Were that the case, Jews could seek a Supreme Court judgment mandating that all food in America be produced in accordance with the laws of Kosher. What’s more, no one is demanding that any particular behavior be condoned, merely that it not be discriminated against. That’s a distinction that conservatives have trouble comprehending, or perhaps they just enjoy being bigots.

RedState’s Erick Erickson chimed in with an article asserting that “‘Gay Marriage’ and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible.” He hinges his argument on the Bible passage, Matthew 19:4-6, wherein Christ says…

“…He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Erickson acknowledges that in this passage Christ is answering a question about whether it is permissible to divorce one’s wife. It was not a question about who is allowed to marry. But he dismisses that fact and focuses only on what he interprets as a definition of marriage, rather than as a direct response to a specific question. Likewise, he dismisses the part about divorce being against God’s law. This is an example of the convenient piety of so many sanctimonious religious zealots that permits them to pick and chose which principles they will honor. If Erickson wants to make a federal case of the definition of marriage as expressed by Matthew 19:4-6, then he should be consistent and call for a constitutional prohibition of divorce. Instead he impugns the sincerity of his ideological foes by calling them “a bunch of progressive Christians who have no use for the Bible,” even though he’s the one twisting it to fit his political prejudices.

Like Loesch and Nolte, Erickson is admitting that he sees gay marriage as “a legal encroachment of God’s intent.” Therefore, without realizing it, he is admitting that it is not a valid argument in a nation whose Constitution says that it “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Even Bill O’Reilly has noticed that the anti-marriage equality crowd is obsessed with religious justifications, rather than sound legal arguments. He praises gay advocates for saying that…

“‘We’re Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

Indeed, Bible thumping is not generally viewed in legal circles as a basis for constitutional findings. Yet, as the issue winds through the maze of judicial debate, the Tea-vangelical’s arguments continue to devolve into nothing but sanctimonious sermonizing. It is evermore apparent that their bigotry has no justification under America’s law, so they fall back on God’s law and attempt to ram their beliefs down the nation’s throat. They clearly have no respect for the Constitution or the freedom it guarantees for religious liberty nor, of course, for the equal protection of the law that forbids the state from discriminating against same-sex couples who seek to marry.

NewsBusters Trolling: Imagine If A Fox News Host Had Said…

Please be sure you are seated before reading this. The shock that will sweep over you may rival Hurricane Sandy in its sheer, raw power. Are you ready? OK…..

Last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, his guest Rachel Maddow called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia…..a TROLL!

Oh lawdy, where’s the smellin’ salts? I dare say I may faint. And I’m not alone. Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters was so appalled that he penned an op-ed for Fox News to unleash his umbrage at this scandalous effrontery. How dare this wanton trollop deign to insult such a virtuous citizen with so foul a curse. And because every spasm of faux outrage requires a racial reference, Sheppard managed to find something in Maddow’s comment that was analogous to the use of the “N-word.” The editorial begins innocently enough by asking us to…

“Imagine for a moment a Fox News host calling one of the liberal Supreme Court justices such as Sonia Sotomayor a ‘troll.'”

Indeed. Just imagine it. Oh wait. You don’t have to imagine it because on April 30, 2009, Erick Erickson said this about retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter:

“The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter’s retirement.”

Erick Erickson

Now that’s the way to express respect for our judiciary. I hope Maddow is paying attention. Erickson was not working for Fox News when he said that, although it does sound like something that would have been posted on the fib-infested Fox Nation. However, Erickson was just hired by Fox in January, and I’m sure that having that comment on his resume helped him to land the job.

Rachel Maddow - Erick Erickson

I’ll be waiting to see Sheppard’s op-ed castigating Erickson and Fox for behaving so disrespectfully to a justice of the high court. And then they can all join Megyn Kelly on her Fox program where she also took a swipe at Maddow. Perhaps they will eventually recognize that calling someone a troll is not nearly as bad as calling the landmark Voting Rights Act a “racial entitlement,” which is what Scalia said that inspired Maddow’s criticism in the first place.

Fox News Trades Toe-Sucking Dick Morris For Goat-Fucking Erick Erickson

The mediasphere is buzzing tonight with the news that Fox News is not renewing the contract of the world’s worst pundit, Dick Morris. Shortly after last November’s election Fox announced that he and Karl Rove would not be permitted on the air without special permission from the network brass. Since then, Rove’s contract was picked up, but until today no one knew what the fate of Morris would be.

Well, now we know. Morris has been thrown out in the cold along with Sarah Palin. This development has caused some analysts to ponder whether Fox is rethinking their signature news model of fabricating scandals and fomenting fear. But fear not. Any notion that Fox would alter the formula that earned them the disrespect of actual journalists everywhere can be set aside.

The fact is that, while Fox is jettisoning Morris (the former Clinton adviser who was caught sucking the toes of a prostitute while they both listened in on calls to the Oval Office), Fox has also hired recently dumped CNN contributor Erick Erickson (who honored retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter by calling him a “Goat-fucking child molester”). So as you can see, Fox’s reputation remains in tact.

Dick Morris

Dick Morris did become somewhat of an embarrassment for Fox after insisting that Mitt Romney would win a landslide victory over Barack Obama. However, that was only his most recent exhibition of idiocy. Morris has been making an ass of himself for years. Particularly notable was his book, “Condi vs. Hillary,” in which he predicted that they would be the candidates in the 2008 election. But Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong; he got the Republican nominee wrong; and the Republican who Morris said could win if he were nominated (McCain) actually was nominated and lost. Is there any way Morris could have been more wrong?

It is nevertheless curious that Fox thinks Erick Erickson will somehow be less embarrassing. He is a vulgar and ignorant ultra-rightist partisan whose observations are shallow and factless. On second thought, he should fit right in at Fox. CNN’s decision to nix him seemed, momentarily, to be a possible sign of redemption. However, CNN just announced that Morris would be a guest on this Wednesday’s episode of the Piers Morgan show. Hopefully that is a one-time booking for the purpose of grilling him and then casting him back into the garbage where he belongs. But with CNN it’s hard to tell where they might be going with this. After all, they did employ Erickson for the past three years.

The cable news wars have been in a state of flux lately, with MSNBC overtaking Fox in parts of primetime with important audience segments. CNN just hired the former NBC/Universal chief, Jeff Zucker, and is beginning to shuffle their programs and people. But Fox still has the most stagnant schedule in cable news with old timers like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and the Fox & Fools in the morning. So anybody expecting to see much of difference in the future for Fox is likely to be proven as mistaken as Morris has been.

Another Fox News Lie: Obama Did Not Take Money From The Kremlin

I hate to be redundant, but Fox News is lying.

On this latest occasion they posted an article on their community web site, Fox Nation with the headline, “Obama Campaign Processed Donation From The Kremlin.”

Fox Nation

The charge stems from an attempt to make a phony online donation to President Obama’s campaign. The “donor” states that he put in fake information hoping to prove that Obama was taking foreign funds in violation of the law. That’s an allegation that was completely debunked here yesterday. Now, after extensive research I have been able to prove that this new allegation by Fox is totally false as well. That research consisted of reading the article to which they linked.

The article was on RedState and was written by RedState editor and CNN contributer, Erick Erickson. His article also featured a headline that was blatantly false: “I Donated to Barack Obama.” That was followed up by another post that said “The Obama Campaign Processed This Donation.” However, if you took the trouble to actually read the article you would have eventually come to this paragraph saying…

“Then this is where the anti-climactic end to my story comes. The donation ultimately did not go through after three days of being listed as “processing.” There was no explanation.”

That’s right. The payment was rejected. And without an explanation at that, as if one was needed. Erickson and Fox just outright lied in saying that the payment was processed. Erickson’s excuse for the dishonesty is a lame assertion that “The Obama campaign processed the donation. It was Bank of America that stopped it, not Team Obama.” But that only proves that he is stupendously ignorant about how online transactions occur. No online commerce site is capable of rejecting a payment on their own. It is always the bank or credit card company that does it. In this case it may have taken a couple of days, but the result was correct. And considering the volume of donations that Obama receives, there is nothing unusual about the timing.

Erickson set up a sting to catch the Obama campaign breaking the law and found out that the campaign was completely legal in every respect. So then he simply ignored the results of his own phony scheme and said that Obama was unlawfully processing payments anyway. That should tell you all you need to know about Erickson’s utter lack of integrity. And of course, the same goes for Fox for re posting Erickson’s lies.