Right-Wing Media Attacks Twelve Year Old Musicians Because Their Parents Are Democrats

The true conservative ethic is once again on display as a prominent rightist media organization launches a vile attack on twelve year old children who formed a rock band. The impetus for the attack was simply that their parents are Democrats. For the Family Values set, that’s reason enough to go after kids.

Twenty/20

The Washington Free Beacon is a Republican operation with ties to the Koch brothers. An article by Sonny Bunch, the managing editor, sports the headline “Awful Children Release Awful Song.” While nobody cares what this lunkhead thinks of their music, it is utterly deplorable that he calls the kids, whom he certainly has never met, “awful.” If Bunch has a problem with the politics of their parents, he ought not to resort to the cowardice of attacking the kids. What sort of sick pervert does that?

The group, Twenty/20, was featured in a brief profile in the New York Daily News when they released a video of a new song (video below). The young players met at the Sidwell Friends School in Washington, which they all attend. Their parents are some of President Obama’s top advisers: Jay Carney’s 12-year-old son, Hugo, is the lead singer. U.S. Trade Rep. Mike Froman’s son Ben plays guitar. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan’s son Lucas plays bass. And Obama campaign adviser Patti Solis Doyle’s son Joey is the drummer.

Those familial relationships was all it took for Bunch to dish dirt on these kids. He described them as being kids “who can kinda hold a guitar or prance around the stage while whinily singing nonsense.” Then he predicts that the “little twerps” will “probably have a keynote gig at the Democratic convention.”

But Bunch isn’t through with his juvenile insults. After inviting you to listen to their “caterwauling” he expects you to agree that “we can reach bipartisan consensus that this song is utter shite, right? “ Then he reviews young Hugo’s singing saying that he “sounds like the whiny, nasally, prepubescent whelp that he is.” Remember, these are twelve year olds he’s talking about. Yet he sounds more like a whiny whelp than they do.

Finally, Bunch attempts to preempt criticism of his craven child abuse by mocking those (like myself) who find it disgusting to take out your political aggression on innocent children. But he defends his immorality by suggesting that because Carney’s kids were part of a magazine’s family profile a few weeks ago, they are now fair game to be maligned by the allegedly mature editor of a puerile rightist rag. I only hope that if he has any kids they don’t suffer the same sort of depravity that he is shoveling here. But then again, they are likely already suffering from having such a dipshit for a dad.

Here is the video of Twenty/20’s song “Heart Thief.” It may not be U2, or even The Ramones, but it shows promise and eagerness. They are clearly having a good time and demonstrating a commitment to something more creative than video games. They should be encouraged to continue to express themselves – as should all kids. As for Bunch, he should be encouraged to shut his fat, ignorant, hateful mouth.

Shadowy Koch Brothers-Backed Group Links Up With Fox News To Sway Midterms

As the midterm elections heat up this year, Fox News will begin to shift their attention from hysteria involving Benghazi to hysteria involving Democratic candidates and campaigns. Not that their fictionalized Benghazi horror stories won’t be a part of the mix, but the selection will be expanded to include more outright politicking.

The prelude to this coming torrent of anti-liberal electioneering was evident today in a Fox News report that warned that a “Shadowy Soros-backed group readies $40M war chest for midterms.” George Soros, of course, is one of the right’s favorite bogeymen to frighten their dimwitted audience into quivering subservience. Just the mention of his name produces Tea-filled goosebumps. As usual, though, Fox News presents a thoroughly dishonest accounting of the facts, while simultaneously concealing the sources of their reporting and their prejudices.

Fox News

For more Fox News lies…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

The first notable divergence from the truth is that the group that Fox News is referencing in their report is not a “Soros-backed” group. The story, by Lachlan Markay of the ultra-rightist Washington Free Beacon, is about the Democracy Alliance, an association of liberal donors who contribute to organizations that further their shared goals. George Soros is a member of the association. He is not a founder, a director, a board member, an executive, a staffer, and does not hold any other position of management or authority. He is merely one of about 100 members with no more influence than any of the others. By referring to the association as “Soros-backed” Fox is deceptively trying to convey that Soros has some special power or control that fits with their nightmare vision of an omnipotent Soros-run world.

Secondly, the revelation that some well-heeled Democrats are engaged in activities that advance the principles in which they believe is not exactly news. Nevertheless, it made headlines on Fox and was hyped as an “exclusive” by the drooling Beaconites. Much of the information in the story was previously known and published, including the names of the people connected to the Democracy Alliance and the organizations that received funding from them.

Even the dollar amounts were not particularly newsworthy. When it was reported by Politico just a couple of weeks ago that the two Koch brothers are embarking on a “$125 Million spending spree,” the $40 million dollars being raised by a group of more than 100 Democrats seems rather paltry by comparison. Yet Fox News goes into full-frenzy mode about the Democracy Alliance, and fails to report the Koch brothers’ activities at all. Additionally, it should also be noted that the $125 million Koch budget, which Politico described as “unprecedented,” is attributed solely to their Tea Party front group, Americans for Prosperity. They will surely spend far more than that through their broad network of conservative advocacy groups and think tanks.

Thirdly, the Washington Free Beacon is itself the creation of Republican Party honchos and is closely affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, a relationship that the Beacon is careful to keep under wraps. So the fake outrage expressed in this story about Soros must be weighed against the fact that the news entity reporting it is snugly in bed with the Koch brothers who oppose Soros. That kind of conflict of interest obliterates any credibility that the Free Beacon might have brought to the story.

Finally, the notion that there is a substantive equivalence between the philanthropic work of George Soros and the members of the Democracy Alliance, as compared to the single-minded self-interest of the Koch brothers is patently absurd. News Corpse recently highlighted the distinctions in an article that sized up the differences between right and left wing millionaires:

“For one thing, the Republican rich can usually be found bankrolling people and projects that benefit them personally or professionally. Thus the Kochs’ fixation on opposing unions and denying climate change is closely aligned with their exploitative and polluting business interests. Well-off Dems, on the other hand, commonly finance more philanthropic endeavors (civil rights, environment, aid to the poor) that aim to improve the quality of life without necessarily enriching themselves.”

This is just the latest example of the conservative media feeding on itself, as a Koch-associated news enterprise funnels its propaganda to Fox News, and all of them demagogue about how awful it is that a billionaire named Soros is helping liberal groups, without ever disclosing their own affiliation with the Koch brothers. It just illustrates how dishonest the right-wing wags are, and how shamelessly they will exploit their power to invent news stories and distribute them among themselves and other friendly outlets like Fox.

What’s The Difference Between Wealthy (Koch) Republicans And (Soros) Democrats?

The billionaire Koch brothers have been corrupting democracy for decades. Their labyrinthine web of front groups toil 24/7 to distort the facts on issues like climate change, voter suppression, gun control, and taxes. And if that collection of topics sounds familiar, it’s because the Kochs almost single-handedly created the Tea Party (with PR help from Fox News) to push their views on those subjects unto a gullible sector of the American populace.

Koch Bros. Fatcat

AT&T and Verizon users: Stop funding the Tea Party.
Switch to CREDO Mobile, the progressive cell phone company, today!

One of the right’s favorite knee-jerk responses to criticisms of the Kochs is to point to wealthy Democrats who contribute to candidates and causes that lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum and claim that the Koch’s critics are hypocrites. However, there have always been some obvious distinctions between the right and left wing upper-crusters. The false argument of equivalency falls flat when given scrutiny.

For one thing, the Republican rich can usually be found bankrolling people and projects that benefit them personally or professionally. Thus the Kochs’ fixation on opposing unions and denying climate change is closely aligned with their exploitative and polluting business interests. Well-off Dems, on the other hand, commonly finance more philanthropic endeavors (civil rights, environment, aid to the poor) that aim to improve the quality of life without necessarily enriching themselves.

It is also notable that conservatives advocate for less regulation of money in politics, creating an environment where the rich get ever more power to bend society to their will. Liberals, conversely, spend more of their cash on trying to remove money from politics. As an example, it was conservatives, including the Kochs, who pushed for Citizens United so that they could fund their self-serving projects without restrictions or even identification. But Jonathan Soros, the son of the right’s favorite wealthy liberal George Soros, created the Friends of Democracy PAC, a SuperPAC aimed at ending the influence of SuperPACs.

A new survey was just published that affirms these distinctions between the rightist rich and the lefty leisure class. Conducted by the Spectrem Group for CNBC (Wall Street’s cable news network) the Millionaire Survey “polled 514 people with investable assets of $1 million or more, which represents the top 8 percent of American households.” Among the sometimes surprising findings was that more than half of the respondents agreed that “inequality of wealth in our nation is a major problem.” Also, 64% favored higher taxes on the rich. A similar number (63%) support an increase in the minimum wage. And only 13% said that unemployment benefits should be reduced. Remember, these are all millionaires in this survey.

Digging a little deeper into these numbers, another interesting trend takes shape. It turns out that there is a marked difference in the views expressed by the millionaire class depending on their political affiliation.

“Democratic millionaires are far more supportive of taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage. Among Democratic millionaires, 78 percent support higher taxes on the wealthy, and 77 percent back a higher minimum wage. That compares with 31 percent and 38 percent, respectively, for Republicans.”

CNBC Millionaire Survey

So the breakdown reveals that it is the Democratic wealthy who are the most conscientious and concerned about their country and their fellow citizens. While the Republican rich are selfishly and characteristically concerned mainly with themselves. It’s the difference between Patriotic Millionaires and Ayn Rand sociopaths. That’s not a particularly surprising revelation, but it is nevertheless useful to see it validated by hard data.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Was Benghazi A Koch Brothers Plot?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has taken a courageous stand of late against the democracy-defiling Koch brothers. He has correctly assailed them for bankrolling dishonest campaigns and offensive Tea Party front groups. However, he has never said what Fox Nation is now reporting that he said:

Fox Nation

For more shameless lying by Fox & Co….
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

No, Harry Reid didn’t say that “Benghazi Is A Koch Brothers Plot.” He didn’t imply it or suggest it or even vaguely allude to it. The quote that Fox Nation cited from an article in the Washington Examiner addressed the announcement by GOP House Speaker John Boehner that he intends to form a special committee to conduct even more fruitless investigations of the trumped up Benghazi scandal. Apparently the four committees that have been beating this dead horse for nearly two years were not sufficient (or competent) to complete the job. However, Reid’s response to this waste of time and taxpayer money was crystal clear and unambiguous. He said that…

“Republicans are showing yet again that they have nothing to offer the middle class. Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.”

Anyone with elementary level comprehension skills understands that Reid was listing – not connecting – the Koch brothers and debunked right-wing conspiracy theories. That’s why he used the word “and” to differentiate between the two. If he were connecting them he would have said “like the Koch brothers who are trying to rekindle…”

It’s clear that Jesse Watters, the editor of the Fox Nation website (whom Stephen Colbert just royally skewered), has way too much time on his hands. If he is reduced to deliberately mischaracterizing simple English in order to smear his enemies, he obviously doesn’t have anything of importance to work on. That’s the tale of all of the Fox News-invented scandals. Since they haven’t got anything of substance with which to tar the President, they just make stuff up and hope their dimwitted audience swallows it. And that’s something they can rest assured will occur.

Koch Brothers Front Group Feeds Fox News Phony Figures On Voter Fraud

A report by Fox News alleges that “Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland.” It’s a shocking statistic that stirs fears of massive election fraud that could sway the results of pivotal campaigns and upset the balance of power in Congress.

Koch/Fox News

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

There’s just one problem with this report: There is no evidence that any of it is true. Fox News cites as their source an organization (Watchdog.org) that purports to be a news enterprise, but is actually a strand of the tangled web of political and media affiliates funded by the notorious Koch brothers.

Watchdog.org provided Fox News with a story about voter registration in Virginia that implies that thousands of Virginia voters are illegally voting twice in Maryland, saying that…

“A crosscheck of voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland turned up 44,000 people registered in both states, a vote-integrity group reported Wednesday.”

In fact, the data referenced in the report only identifies registrations with similar names, but it does not assert that they are the same people. In addition, it would not be unusual to find numerous cases where people re-registered after having moved from Virginia to Maryland, which is perfectly legal so long as they do not cast votes in both precincts. Even the president of the group that provided the data acknowledges that…

“…the number of voters who actually cast multiple ballots is relatively small. In the case of Maryland and Virginia, he revealed that 164 people voted in both states during the 2012 election.”

So 164 people, out of 44,000 registered voters, are alleged to have voted in both states, although they were more than likely different people with similar names. Yet this utterly insignificant and unfounded assertion of election fraud was elevated by Fox News to a scandal of huge proportions. And this isn’t the first time. Just last week Bill O’Reilly offered a slightly different version of the same story. In his broadcast he referred to allegedly duplicate voter registrations in North Carolina and other states, but his story had the same flaws as the Virginia story.

As for Watchdog.org, News Corpse reported on their propaganda wire service last year finding that…

“Watchdog.org is actually a right-wing, propaganda-spewing project that is funded by the Koch brothers through their Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. It is an unabashedly partisan source of slanted opinions and attack pieces. […] A quick Google search on Fox News, and their related Fib Factory Fox Nation, turned up dozens of previous Watchdog-sourced articles that were published by Fox. Many of these articles are hit pieces on unions and environmental science, two issues that deeply interest the Koch brothers whose businesses have fought workers rights and have contributed to dirtying the air and water of every place they have a presence. In none of the articles did Fox provide disclosure of the Koch affiliation to the reporting.”

This is one of the great advantages of being a billionaire who can bankroll a phony news service and funnel the fictional propaganda to friendly media. And by taking the tainted stories from a biased source with vested interests, Fox News proves again that it is nothing more than a PR agency for Republicans and the conservative agenda.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts: Koch Brothers = Flag Burning Nazis

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to permit unlimited contributions to political candidates and committees represents a further degradation of democracy as an experiment in self-rule. Along with the Citizen’s United case, this ruling puts more power into the hands of an elite minority of wealthy plutocrats whose only interest is in feathering their own already luxurious nests.

The decision impacts about five hundred people whose political contributions have reached the previous limits. That leaves the rest of the 350 million Americans who don’t have private fortunes to struggle for recognition from politicians who feast off of money. It is incomprehensible that five legally trained justices can plausibly deny the fact that big donors are able to extract favors from congressmen and senators, and that such favoritism corrupts the electoral system.

The reasoning articulated by Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decision, defies logic. It is evidence that he and his conservative comrades on the Court were more interested in producing a desired result than in interpreting the Constitution. Here is the key argument presented by Roberts:

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.”

John Roberts Political Speech

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The problem with this argument is that it confuses the content of political speech with the manner of it. Everyone would agree that content, regardless of its popularity or lack thereof, is protected speech. But this case had nothing whatsoever to do with content. The plaintiff was contesting campaign laws that put limits on the amount of aggregate contributions any individual may make to candidates and/or political action committees. These laws were intended to prevent the sort of manipulation and influence peddling that existed prior to their enactment. The laws in no way prohibit free expression and the plaintiff never alleged that they did so.

The manner, or process, in which speech is made, however, is constitutionally subject to regulation. Everybody knows the legally justified consequences of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. In addition, you cannot slander or libel someone; you cannot claim that your pomegranate smoothie cures liver cancer; you cannot spray-paint your message onto a citizen waiting for a bus; you cannot hack the satellite feed of a television network and broadcast your speech instead of American Idol; and, until this week, you could not spend unlimited sums of money to buy an election and a candidate or candidates.

The statement above by Chief Justice Roberts illustrates the faulty logic of content vs. process. Flag burning is an example of the content of speech. But contribution limits are an example of process. The process can be regulated without ever affecting any content, opinion, or exercise of free expression. Not being able to continue making donations after you have reached a proscribed limit does not prohibit you from continuing to speak. Put up a billboard. Publish an editorial. Call into the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Buy yourself a half hour of primetime television. Your rights are obviously still in effect. But it is perfectly reasonable for legislatures to enact contribution limits that protect the democratic process from being co-opted by wealthy special interests.

The right to donate unlimited sums of cash to a candidate exists nowhere in the Constitution. This court has invented a right on the shaky premise that it is tied to free speech. However, if I can’t stand in front of Donald Trump’s mansion with a bullhorn day and night, I still have other means of expressing myself. The same is true for the Koch brothers if they are not allowed to pour unlimited funds into the bank account of GOP hack who will do their bidding.

However, the irony of Roberts invoking free speech in his decision delivers a rather appropriate juxtaposition of ideas. By trying to conflate process with content, Roberts produced an example that puts extravagant campaign spending in the same category as repugnant behavior like flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades. On that measure, I’m gonna have to agree with him.

Koch Brothers Tea Party Front Group Caught In An ObamaCare Lie (Again)

In the past few weeks Americans For Prosperity (AFP), the Koch brothers financed Tea Party propaganda outfit, has produced a couple of anti-ObamaCare ads that featured alleged “victims” of the health insurance reform. The campaign ended in embarrassment for AFP when the phony “horror stories” were revealed to be utterly false. Independent analysis of the insurance coverage available to the subjects of the ads proved that they were better off under ObamaCare than they were without it.

Koch Bros. Fatcat

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

So AFP abandoned that strategy and released an ad that consisted of a lone spokeswoman making vague criticisms of ObamaCare in a tone of voice dripping with despondency and a tag line bemoaning that “It just doesn’t work.” However, even with this tactic of avoiding any verifiable content that might get them tied up in another counterfactual morass, they still managed to produce a thoroughly dishonest commercial that received a “False” rating from PolitiFact.

The principle claim in the new ad was that “millions are paying more and getting less.” However, as PolitiFact’s research shows, there is no truth to the claim:

PolitiFact: Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways — including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.

In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.

The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.

Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.

People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.

PolitiFact concludes by saying that “At worst, they’re paying more to get more, though in many cases they’re actually paying less.” They also include a chart that shows that, while insurance premiums have risen since ObamaCare became law, the rise is slower than in any of the previous fourteen years. What critics of ObamaCare always seem to forget is that before it came along insurance companies routinely raised premiums, canceled plans, narrowed doctor networks, and declined coverage. They also refused patients with preexisting conditions, terminated patients when they filed claims, and capped benefits at amounts far below realistic costs for care.

Prior to ObamaCare it was always the insurance company that came between the patient and the doctor. And their motivation was strictly related to increasing profits. ObamaCare’s mandates are aimed at improving health care and medical outcomes, not enriching corporations and their executives.

As for Americans For Prosperity, the Koch brothers, and their PR division, Fox News, you have to wonder, if ObamaCare is so terrible, then why do they have to repeatedly lie about it to make it look bad? Why can’t they find any real horror stories? Why can’t they tell the truth about the economics of the program? Why do they so feverishly try to frighten people away?

Fox Business Network Debunks Fox News/Koch Brothers ObamaScare Story

From the very first days of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) Fox News and other right-wing media have work their butts off trying to frighten people away from it. Their ultimate goal is to sabotage the program by suppressing participation. But with more than three million enrollments, and millions more covered by Medicaid or parental plans, the Fox strategy appears to be failing miserably.

That, however, has not dampened their resolve to do damage to the program and the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from it. Recently an ad that was produced by the Koch brothers-financed Americans for Prosperity, featured a Tennessee woman who suffers from Lupus. In the ad Emilie Lamb claims that she was forced from a state-sponsored insurance plan (which conservatives usually oppose) that cost her $57.00 a month, to an ObamaCare plan that cost $373.00. On the surface that sounds pretty awful. But as usual, there is much going on just below the surface.

Fox News

Consumer Reports health care expert Nancy Metcalf, writing for the Fox Business Network, added some necessary context to this story. Her article titled “Don’t be fooled by another ‘Obamacare horror story,'” spells out why Lamb’s claim that her previous policy satisfied her needs may not have been entirely true. For instance, Lamb’s CoverTN plan had a cap of $25,000, but Metcalf notes that most Lupus patients spend far more than that each year for routine medication and doctors visits. If she has a flare up or requires treatment for more severe symptoms, Lamb’s medical expenses could easily exceed six figures. Metcalf writes that…

“Under her old plan, they would not have been covered. Under her new plan, they will be. I used HealthCare.gov’s window-shopping feature to identify what she purchased: a Platinum plan with a $1,500 out-of-pocket limit. There is no deductible, 25 percent coinsurance for pretty much all services, and, most critically, no upper limit on what the plan will pay out for medical care. So if she ever has a complication of her disease, or needs one of those expensive drugs, the most she’ll have to pay out of pocket in a year is $1,500. The insurance company will pick up the rest of the tab, no matter how costly.”

One of the incentives for implementing health insurance reform was the number of bankruptcies filed by working Americans whose insurance failed to cover them after they had the audacity to get sick. While Ms. Lamb is understandably disturbed by the higher premiums she is facing now, it is preferable to a financial (and health) disaster should her disease take a turn for the worse. In addition, the evidence actually suggests that Lamb’s costs will be lower under ObamaCare due the $1,500 annual out of pocket maximum, and the absence of any lifetime cap. Under her previous policy she would be responsible for much more over time.

The Koch brothers and Fox News have been relentlessly hyping this story as proof that ObamaCare has not served patients like Lamb. They have featured it on the air with reports that provide no opinion counter to that of the Fox angle. They have posted it on their lie-riddled community website, Fox Nation. They published an op-ed by Lamb in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post. So it is somewhat curious that they permitted their hype to be debunked on their little-viewed Fox Business Network website.

This may be their way of buying a little insurance of their own. When the bottom falls out of their propaganda machine, they can claim that they were “fair and balanced” after all. Even though their blurb on the FBN blog can never match the magnitude of their attacks on ObamaCare throughout the rest of their media empire. And don’t expect to see Nancy Metcalf providing Fox News viewers with her analysis anytime soon. She’s not likely to be invited onto the O’Reilly Factor given the factual nature of her reporting.

To Fox, it’s best to keep people like Metcalf segregated to the FBN web ghetto so the Foxbots aren’t exposed to the sort of truthful information that contradicts conservative spin and rattles right-wing media.

Koch Brothers Take Their Campaign To Kill Net Neutrality To Fox News

Last month the corporate-friendly majority on the Supreme Court struck down FCC rules that required Internet service providers (ISP) to treat all content equally. Known as “Network Neutrality,” these rules prevent companies like AT&T from providing fast service for Internet sites it favors, while impeding content from those it does not. Without Net Neutrality, you might try to access Dominoes Pizza, but your ISP could refuse that request and direct you to Papa John’s, who paid them to do so. Or they could simply slow down the connection to Dominoes so that you would give up and try some other pizzeria.

Net Neutrality insures that you are able to access any site on the Internet that you want without interference from your provider. Unfortunately, the big ISPs (i.e. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc.) oppose that freedom. They want to control your access and make either you, or the destination sites, pay them to open the highway to free-flowing traffic. Theoretically, they could just as easily obstruct your access to content they find objectionable politically, morally, or economically (i.e. their competitors).

Fox Nation

Read the acclaimed ebook Fox Nation vs. Reality for more brazen Fox lies.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Democrats in Congress drafted the “Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014,” with the stated goal of…

“…restor[ing]the Open Internet Rules struck down by the D.C. Circuit in January 2014 prohibiting broadband Internet service providers from engaging in discriminatory behavior or blocking content altogether.”

Within hours the conservative opposition to the bill cranked up on behalf of the corporations that bankroll them. Prominent among them was the Koch brothers who have long been aggressive opponents of an open Internet. Their fake news wire service, Watchdog.org, quickly published an article that thoroughly mischaracterized the facts and featured a deceitful headline saying “Democratic federal lawmakers really want the FCC to regulate Internet.”

By casting this as an issue of regulation, the Koch brothers seek to marshal support for their anti-Internet agenda. To the extent that this bill can be portrayed as regulation, it is a regulation that guarantees more freedom for all users of the Internet. Granted, there is somewhat less freedom for ISPs to gouge consumers and inhibit free speech. Despite the fact that the legislation was drafted by Democrats, the only member of Congress that the article quoted was arch-rightist Marsha Blackburn who said…

“It’s more than ironic that the same Administration that can’t figure out how to make Healthcare.Gov work now thinks that regulating the Internet like China and Russia will make things better for American consumers.”

Clearly Blackburn doesn’t understand either Net Neutrality or the nature of Russian and Chinese censorship. It is Net Neutrality that actually makes the Internet more open, and the lack of it that permits government and corporate interference. But she is just another Republican who is doing the bidding of her well-heeled corporate donors.

koch-news
True to form, Fox News picked up the story from Watchdog and ran it on their lie-riddled, community website Fox Nation with the headline “Dems Pushing FCC To Regulate Internet.” Fox News regularly publishes articles from the fake Koch brothers wire service that always seem to advance the interests of wealthy industrialists like the Kochs. It’s one of the perks of being rich enough to create your own “news” distribution outlet that can feed propaganda to friendly publishers like Fox.

In this case, Fox News is doing a disservice to their audience by failing to disclose the partisan interests of their source. But more seriously, they are feeding them disinformation about net neutrality that could result in a severe reduction in the freedom that has always been a part of the open Internet if Fox and the Kochs are successful.

The Tea Party Is Over According To – Bill O’Reilly!

The astroturf fraud known as the Tea Party was literally invented by a cabal of uber-rightist millionaires and corporations with interests in tobacco and oil. The prime movers were the Koch brothers, who transited from their father’s John Birch Society to their own front groups, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

The financial firepower of these entities, however, was still not enough to elevate the Tea Party “movement.” It required an aggressive media sponsor to flood the news zone with faux-populist themes and give birth to the puppetized pundits and politicians who would carry the message. For that mission Fox News was all too ready to volunteer and even went to great lengths to brand the Tea Party as a Fox News subsidiary with promos touting their “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties.” There can be no doubt that without Fox News there would be no Tea Party.

Bill O'Reilly
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

That makes the new column by Fox’s star attraction, Bill O’Reilly, all the more startling. His own headline reads “Is the Tea Party Over?” And by the end he answers the question with a resounding “Yes.”

“The only way the Tea Party can resurrect itself is for it to coalesce around a strong leader. There has to be a central message delivered by someone with charisma, a person who is reasonable and persuasive. The movement has been damaged both inside and out. Only a very intense public relations campaign will turn the tide.

“I don’t think that will happen. It would take millions of dollars in TV ads and organizational infrastructure for the Tea Party to negate the national media’s contempt. And that kind of big money operation goes directly against what the Tea Party people want to be – a citizen movement that operates independent of party structure.”

O’Reilly’s opinion, in short, is that “The only way the Tea Party can resurrect itself is for it to coalesce around a strong leader,” and “I don’t think that will happen.” O’Reilly is throwing recent Tea Darlings like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul under the bus, along with baggers like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann who are already there.

I’m not going to argue with O’Reilly’s conclusion because the Tea Party has always been a constructed reality. It never existed outside of the power structure of the Republican elite. There were no Tea Party candidates, conventions, voter registrations, or platforms. They were all Republican politicians, voters, and policies. However, there is much to disagree with in the path to O’Reilly’s eulogy.

First of all, O’Reilly’s contention that the Tea Party’s problem is a lack of leaders can only be taken seriously by a deaf and blind pundit who lives in a Himalayan cave. There are many who do, and who aspire to, lead the phony parade. Their problem is that they advocate a broadly unpopular set of policies that the American people emphatically reject. People like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have favorable ratings that scrape the sea floor at record low levels, as does the Tea Party itself. The Tea Party doesn’t have a public relations problem, it has an agenda problem.

Secondly, O’Reilly seems to think that there hasn’t been enough money thrown at advancing the Tea Party mission. When he said that it “would take millions of dollars” which conflicts with the Tea Party’s alleged aversion to “big money operations,” he ignores the fact that the Tea Party has always been a big money operation financed with hundreds of millions of dollars by everyone from the Koch brothers to Karl Rove to the Republican National Committee, and dozens of mysterious Super PACs that keep their donor’s identities secret.

The central theme of O’Reilly’s column is that the Tea Party’s woes are all the result of the contempt of the media (as opposed to the contempt of the people). He says that “the Tea Party finds itself with an image problem and there are two primary reasons why.” The first of O’Reilly’s gripes is with the media, who he says “is at odds with Tea Party beliefs,” and that “demonizes the Tea Party all day long calling it racist, stupid and even worse – unsophisticated!” It’s telling that O’Reilly thinks it’s worse to be called unsophisticated than racist or stupid. But he may be onto something because, based on their behavior, most Tea Partiers don’t seem to be concerned about public displays of racism or stupidity.

The second of O’Reilly’s grips is with the media (just like the first gripe), but in this case it’s “the right wing media, which generally loves the party.” Here O’Reilly lays into the birther nutjobs who call the President a communist and a Muslim. In other words, most of the Tea Party and much of Fox News. O’Reilly attempts to take a stand for comity by declaring that “Hate is hate no matter what ideology you embrace.” This from the guy who opened the column by implying that the supporters of Occupy Wall Street “embrace violent tactics [and] infringe on the rights of the folks.”

So according to O’Reilly, the billionaire-backed Tea Party is not a big money operation, it has no national leaders unless you count the Cruzes and Palins and Pauls, and Limbaughs and Hannitys, etc., but it is plagued by a contemptuous media that hates them and an adoring media that loves them. [Warning: Don’t try to make any sense of this. It can only lead to confusion, severe mental anguish, logical disorientation, and acute migraines]. However, if O’Reilly’s tortured contention is that what it all adds up to is that the Tea Party is over, let’s just cross our fingers hope that he stumbled onto the truth for a change. But in all likelihood, he is just carrying water for the establishment GOP who are trying desperately to distance themselves from Tea Party crackpottery out of fear that it is going to be a big loser for them in the 2014 elections. He, and they, are too late. Now they have to live (or perish, as the case may be) with the monster they created.