Shawna Forde: Guilty of all eight counts in the Flores family murders

-- by Dave

The jury in Shawna Forde's trial for the murders of 9-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul, spent nine hours deliberating the case before delivering its verdict today in Pima County Superior Court, and it was clear there was little doubt in their minds: Forde was found guilty of all eight counts in the case, including two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder for the shooting of Brisenia's mother, and an assortment of burglary, robbery and aggravated assault charges.

I was there to observe. The jury's verdict came in relatively short time this morning in Tucson, and it was an efficient affair: Forde, wearing a light plaid suit jacket and pants, entered with her attorneys, looking confident and smiling. The jury then filed in, and delivered their verdicts to the judge. The court clerk then read them aloud, along with the jury's findings: guilty, guilty, guilty, with no doubts at all about any of the qualifying issues.

Strangely, Forde was almost perfectly emotionless: She looked straight ahead, chatted with her attorneys, and even smiled occasionally. Indeed, she continued to exude the bravado that has been her style from the outset -- even as she was led back out of the courtroom to her awaiting prison cell.

There were plenty of emotions flowing, though -- much of it directly in front of me. As the verdicts were announced, Brisenia's mother, Gina Gonzalez -- who not only survived the shootings, but delivered damning testimony in the trial -- began weeping softly, as did her sister and mother, who accompanied her.

Now the trial heads to the penalty phase, with a hearing tomorrow to discuss mitigating factors in the sentencing, which will be followed by deliberations to determine whether or not she ends up on Arizona's death row. (Arizona currently has only one other woman facing the death penalty -- Wendi Andriano, convicted in 2004 of murdering her husband. (Arizona's preferred method of execution is by lethal injection.)

As Presente observed in its press release praising the verdict:

Though we received a verdict that condemned these atrocious murders, we also recognize that the Brisenia Flores’ case is not the isolated incident that some media reports make it out to be. Rather, it has galvanized the attention of the entire Latino community across the country as it reflects the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino hatred organized by extremist groups. Latinos – the fastest-growing and largest ethnic minority group in the U.S. – understand and experience the phenomenon of hatred that has rapidly expanded in the nation. In fact, Latinos are closely watching media outlets that provide a platform for hatred promoted by extremist groups like MAD and the Federation for American Immigration Reform – a group Forde represented on a PBS show, for instance. Latinos are closely watching those media outlets that irresponsibly allow hateful groups attack to Latinos and immigrants, fanning the flames of fear and violence in our communities.

The details revealed in the murder trial have touched us all in a deep and unique way. These important details reflect the deepening and mainstreaming of the most noxious and dangerous strands of hatred in the United States. They move us to continue efforts to make sure there are no more hate-crimes and to take action in condemning media outlets that help disseminate hatred.

Kim Smith at the Arizona Daily Star has the complete wrapup.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck calls on the latter-day General Ripper to bolster his IslamoMarxistFascistSocialist conspiracy theory about Egypt

-- by Dave

Glenn Beck, we can all see, is really plunging wildly over an emotional cliff in his increasingly bizarre attempts to defend his wild conspiracy theories about the unrest in Egypt. And it's been such an epic meltdown that it's been hard to keep track of all its many variations.

But the researchers at Media Matters happened to catch one of the more hilarious of these: Beck bringing on a onetime commanding general in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin -- to defend his theory as being on the money. That's right: the guy who brought you Abu Ghraib, on to warn of yet another dire threat.

Of course, the last we happened to notice Boykin poking his head out of his lead-lined nuclear bunker was when he was explaining how Marxism is being insidiously implemented in America under President Obama -- rather like another general we once knew:



As we observed at the time, this was what Boykin saw as America's biggest problem:

I'm a Special Forces officer, I'm a Green Beret and I've studied Marxist insurgency, it was part of my training. And the things I know have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.

Among the signs that we are now on the verge of a complete Marxist takeover?

-- The bailouts, which Boykin says "nationalized" large chunks of the economy.

-- Gun control, which Boykin claims that Obama is pursuing by agreeing to a United Nations small-arms treaty.

-- The hate crimes law, which Boykin claims is about being able to silence pastors and other critics.

And then, of course, the coup d'grace:

The final thing has been to establish a constabulary force, a force that can control the population. You say "well, we don't have that." Well, let me remind you that prior to the election, the President stood up and said that if elected he would have a nation civilian security force that would be as large as and as well-equipped as the United States military.

For what?

Remember Hitler had the Brownshirts and in the Night of the Long Knives, even Hitler got scared of the Brownshirts and killed thousands of them.

So you say "are there any signs that that's happened" and the truth is yes. If you read the health care legislation which, by the way nobody in Washington has read, but if you read the health care legislation it's actually in the health care legislation.

There are paragraphs in the health care legislation that talk about the commissioning of officers in time of a national crisis to work directly for the President. It's laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.

Of course, one couldn't listen to this rant without being instantly reminded of General Jack D. Ripper. I obtained some documentary footage of Gen. Ripper and mashed it up with the Boykin video so you could do a comparison/contrast.

As Kyle notes:

Let me also just point out that Senate Republicans actually had Boykin on their witness list to testify against Elena Kagan at her confirmation hearing until they dropped him at the last moment.

Gee, I can't imagine why.

Let me also point out that Boykin is not only one of the brilliant geniuses behind Abu Ghraib, he also played a major role in the horrendous disaster at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993.

What is not known about Waco is that the final assault plan was amended on the ground by the tactical field commanders on the very day of the assault. That alteration had been discussed and rejected by the FBI brass over several weeks. Nonetheless, the FBI HRT commander, Richard Rogers implemented the rejected plan via a loophole signed by Janet Reno the morning of the final assault on April 19. That alteration was identical to the gassing and demolition plan that two Delta Force advisors seconded to the Justice Dept. in a principals meeting of April 14. Those two advisors supported the rejected plan that was later implemented "hypothetically" in order to conform to the letter of Posse Comitatus law. I also have published a peer-reviewed article with this finding. It is based on government documents--all open source. The rejected plan supported by Jeff Jamar, Richard Rogers, and the two Delta Force officers resulted in a disaster that did not have to happen. It was an ill-advised tactical approach to a religious community that feared that Satan was attacking them.

Those two Delta Force officers were Peter J. Schoomaker and "Jerry" Boykin, now both top officials in the US Army in charge of military planning for the war on terrorism.

Hey Glenn -- we're convinced!

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The Shawna Forde trial: As case goes to jury, cable TV networks continue to ignore the story

-- by Dave

[Video via KOLD-TV.]

One of the prevailing questions about the case of Shawna Forde, even as her trial was getting under way, was whether the mainstream media would bother to notice.

A Washington Post piece actually tried to tackle this very question, but only dropped a little toe into the lava pit:

But unlike the Krentz case, the trial has been a largely local story.

"There's a few places writing about this, but it is not getting the attention it deserves," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president of the National Council of La Raza. "It should be shocking to more people. Is there any circumstance where what took place is acceptable to people?"

Krentz's shooting, which for a time was a staple of news coverage and has been brought up in homeland security hearings on Capitol Hill, struck a nerve in part because of the government's failure to deal with illegal immigration. Arizona, which the Pew Hispanic Center reported this month is home to 400,000 undocumented immigrants, has passed tough legislation in recent months to crack down on those who are in the country illegally.

The trial is now in the hands of the jury, and I haven't yet seen a single cable-network report on the story -- particularly not on Fox News Channel, which has had complete silence on the case. I'm flying down to Tucson tomorrow and will be reporting from the scene when the verdict is delivered. (The project is being funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute.)

Meanwhile, the local media have done an excellent job of covering the trial, particularly the reporters at the Arizona Daily Star, led by Kim Smith, who wrap up the closing arguments made Thursday:

Shawna Forde thought so highly of herself she believed she could create a new world, decide who was a drug dealer and who wasn't and who should live and die, prosecutor Rick Unklesbay told jurors Thursday.

The truth, however, he said, is, "What Shawna Forde is is a common thief and a murderer."

Unklesbay spent approximately 90 minutes Thursday going over the evidence he says proves Forde, 43, was the mastermind behind a May 30, 2009, Arivaca home invasion that left Raul Junior Flores, 29, and his 9-year-old-daughter, Brisenia, dead of multiple gunshot wounds.

Two other suspects in the case, Jason Bush and Albert Gaxiola, are scheduled to go to trial this spring.

The prosecutor reminded jurors that at least four witnesses testified Forde bragged about her plan to fund her Minutemen American Defense organization by robbing drug-cartel associates during home invasions.

Among those witnesses were her sister, two FBI informants and Oin Oakstar, an Arivaca drug smuggler.

Flores and Brisenia died because of Forde's greed, Unklesbay said.

Forde may not have pulled the trigger, "But make no mistake about it, she's the one who planned the event, recruited the people to do it and she went in there with them," Unklesbay said.

The Daily Star team has also been filing a lot of the details in the trial at their courthouse blog. Definitely worth checking out.

Meanwhile, the folks at Presente have created a website and poster demanding justice for Brisenia Flores:



Go here to sign a petition demanding justice for Brisenia.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Embracing their inner extremist at CPAC: Ron Paul wins the straw poll again

-- by Dave

Well, it won't make The Donald very happy, but here we go again:

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote.

The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 GOP candidate who is expected to run again, came in second place with 23 percent of the vote. Romney won the previous three presidential straw polls before Paul snapped his streak last year.

Many convention-goers booed when the results were announced but the Paul supporters drowned them out with chants of "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!"

Paul's consecutive victories in the straw poll have frustrated many GOP faithful who would rather see a more credible contender win. A CPAC official told Fox News that the big story is not Paul winning again but rather the strength of Romney's second-place finish.

I think we can just pretty much repeat what Logan said last year at this time:

Now, I don't disagree with everything Ron Paul has to say, but I would never vote for him and boy, did he ever get destroyed by the GOP base during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Talk about the proverbial ship without a rudder. This wasn't some online poll that got freeped, this was taken in person at the GOP's biggest annual event.

It's always helpful when a guy who really is a right-wing extremist gets the support of the GOP's most ardent activists. Tells us a lot about the direction they want to go, at the very least.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Another non-violent Tea Partier gets eight years in prison for assaulting Obama supporter with pool cue

-- by Dave

Because, of course, Tea Partiers are just innately civil, nonviolent people who only want to reduce government spending:

Tea party member gets 8 years for attacking Obama supporter

A Gwinnett judge sentenced a tea party member to serve eight years in prison for attacking and hospitalizing a President Barack Obama supporter during a 2009 bar room altercation, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Jurors convicted Carnesville resident Larry Morgan, 39, of aggravated assault and two counts of aggravated battery this week for smashing several bones in the victim’s face with a pool cue on Jan. 31, 2009 — a few days after Obama’s inauguration. Deliberations took only an hour.

The single blow, which broke the pool stick in half, happened about 1:30 a.m. at Will Henry’s Tavern in Stone Mountain, said Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Taylor, who prosecuted.

The victim, Patrick O’Neill, then 24, was hospitalized for five days and endured a months-long recovery. He testified that he suffered numerous facial fractures, including a broken nose and orbital ethmoid bone, Taylor said.

“The pictures of his injuries were some of the most egregious pictures I have seen,” Taylor said. “(He) is very lucky to be alive.”

According to testimony, trouble began when Morgan was talking to other bar patrons about his negative feelings about Obama, when one of O’Neill’s friends said he had voted for the president.

Morgan replied, “Well, you are stupid as hell,” before making some racist comments or jokes, witnesses testified, Taylor said. All people involved were white, she said.

Later, O’Neill and his friend were laughing about or poking fun at Morgan’s comments when he became angry, fetched a pool cue and broke it across O’Neill’s face. The impact was so forceful that the victim had no memory of being struck or the circumstances leading up to it, Taylor said.

Morgan, who testified he considers himself a tea party member, told the court he was acting in self-defense. He claimed O’Neill and his friend had threatened “to beat him up in the parking lot,” Taylor said, recalling testimony.

There, you see! It's just another liberal plot to make Tea Partiers look like violent thugs.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Like Howard Beale on hydrocodone: Glenn Beck approaches final meltdown in extended angry rant

-- by Dave

There really isn't much to say about Glenn Beck's opening rant for his Fox News show yesterday. It really pretty much speaks for itself.

Which is to say: Better ready that nice rubber room for the pudgy guy.

It does feature what will no doubt become a classic line:

BECK: You want to call me crazy? Go to hell. Call me crazy all you want!"

See, this is like all those times Beck has pretended that he was asked his viewers, "What if I'm right?" He never seems to reckon much on the consequences of his being wrong.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

If multiculturalism is dead, what do its critics propose to replace it with?

-- by Dave

[media id="19612" embed="true" image="true" download="true"]

Britain's new Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, joined in what is becoming an increasing right-wing chorus in Europe proclaiming the failure of multiculturalism, coming shortly on the heels of German chancellor Angela Merkel's similar proclamation in October.

This, of course, pleases the cultural warriors at Fox News, especially John Bolton, who was on Greta Van Susteren's show last night proclaiming how right Cameron is.

For the sake of argument, let us concede at least that multiculturalism has developed some important flaws over the years, some of which the conservatives have identified. What none of these critics have explained, however, is what system of racial ethics they would champion in lieu of multiculturalism.

If multiculturalism is dead, what do they propose we replace it with?

Remember: As I've explained many times, multiculturalism -- a concept first proposed by the father of modern anthropology, Franz Boas -- was specifically a direct reaction against white supremacism, and eventually overthrew it as the dominant American worldview. Most American critics are coy about what they would replace it with -- though of course, there are some Nativists who are not: they want to resurrect the white-supremacist ethos that was dominant in America for much of the first half of the 20th century and before.

Nonetheless, it was a concept tailored for America -- in part because of the national "melting pot" that has been our history, and in part because Boas saw it as a specifically democratic ethos. This may go a long way in explaining why the Europeans are continuing to struggle with it.

Consider, for instance, Cameron's chief rationale invoking what he calls "state multiculturalism":

"State multiculturalism is a wrong-headed doctrine that has had disastrous results. It has fostered difference between communities," the Conservative leader said in a speech.

"And it has stopped us from strengthening our collective identity. Indeed, it has deliberately weakened it."

Cameron defined "state multiculturalism" as "the idea that we should respect different cultures within Britain to the point of allowing them – indeed encouraging them – to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream."

But that's the root of the problem, isn't it? Arriving immigrants in Europe are never treated -- either legally or culturally -- as real citizens, full participants in the society and culture. You can claim French citizenship, but if you're Muslim, no one in France treats you as a Frenchman.

Europeans have been distinctly slow -- indeed, expressly reluctant -- to assimilate their arriving immigrants, and this has ultimately driven the arriving cultures into insular enclaves, for their own self-protection and sustenance.

It's not so much that multiculturalism has failed in Europe as that Europeans have distinctly failed at being multicultural -- in many regards because of their own deeply embedded racial and cultural attitudes about arriving immigrants and their own native ethnic identities. And now, they're blaming that failure on the arriving immigrants instead of taking a good hard look in the mirror.

Sort of like the people like John Bolton, who made similar remarks about American immigrants. He also made a claim typical of revisionist right-wing jingoes:

BOLTON: I think it's absolutely fundamental in a country like ours, where we have always welcomed immigrants, we have insisted that they all go into the melting pot.

That's simply historically false -- at least, prior to the arrival of multiculturalism after 1950. Look, for instance, at how we treated Asians for years: We denied them citizenship and the right to naturalize as citizens until after World War II, forcing thousands of Asian immigrants to exist here in a kind of political limbo that only their children were able to climb out of, thanks to birthright citizenship (and yes, the Nativists of that era worked to deny those Asian-American immigrants that right, too, back then).

Moreover, it was a commonly held belief that Asians could never become "real Americans" -- "oil and water never mix" was the oft-heard explanation for this belief -- because they were deemed too "alien" to ever become full-blooded Americans and full participants in our society. Indeed, the term "illegal alien" was devised to describe Asian immigrants after the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act -- an expressly racist piece of legislation dubbed the "Asian Exclusion Act" (it forbade all further immigration from Asia) and the foundation upon which our modern immigration laws rest even today.

These views were based on the prevailing racial ethos of those times. It has been only since the rise of multiculturalism after 1950 as the gradually prevailing ethos that America began not only recognizing but welcoming immigrants of all races and ethnic backgrounds -- and actually assimilating them. Before multiculturalism, all immigrants faced real difficulties, and nonwhite immigrants in particular were kept out of the "melting pot" almost entirely.

So this again begs the question: If David Cameron thinks multiculturalism is a failure, what does he propose to replace it with? Does he favor the right-wing approach that ultimately favors white supremacy? Or does he have some hithero-unknown system of racial ethics in mind?

The rest of the world would like to know.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Birthright-citizenship bill stalls: Arizonans may be hesitating to invite another firestorm

-- by Dave

You know that plan by Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce -- the architect of SB1070 -- to push through legislation that would deny the children of undocumented immigrants their traditional American citizenship by birthright?

Seems it ran into a bit of an obstacle this week:

A bid to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants faltered Monday when proponents could not get the votes of a Senate panel.

After more than three hours of testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, yanked the two measures. Gould said he lacked the backing of four other members of the Republican-controlled panel, which he chairs.

Gould said he will keep trying to secure votes. And Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said, if necessary, he will reassign the proposal to a more friendly committee.

There was a lot of testimony about the bill, including an invited "expert" who urged the senators to pass the bill just so the state can immediately embark upon an expensive legal defense that they hope will go all the way to the Supreme Court -- where he predicts there will finally be "clarity" on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to every person born on American soil.

But other than that, the committee heard nothing but criticism, including testimony from children begging them not to take their citizenship away, to a Democratic senator who wanted to know how people would prove their citizenship: Would they have to carry copies of their parents' birth certificates too?

However, I will just about guarantee that the testimony that convinced this committee full of Republicans to think twice before committing the state's taxpayers to this misadventure came from the business community:

The proposals also drew opposition from the business community.

Kevin Sandler, president of Exhibit One, said he worried about the message adopting such a law would send.

Sandler said his firm, which provides audiovisual equipment to courts across the nation, had to lay off six employees after some out-of-state firms boycotted Arizona businesses after lawmakers adopted SB 1070 last year. That measure gives police more power to detain illegal immigrants.

"We've created a toxic environment," he told lawmakers. "Businesses don't want to move here."

He said companies looking to relocate pay attention to the political climate in a state.

"What we've really done is create a not-open-for-business environment here."

And Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told legislators they should leave the question of citizenship where it belongs: in Congress.

Arizona's economy is completely in the toilet, far more so than in most other states. And while it may not be the chief culprit, the reality is that the furor over the immigrant-bashing SB1070 dearly cost the state -- not just with the boycott, which had a major impact, but with the dramatic loss of tourism dollars thanks to Republicans' incessant and hysterical fearmongering in defense of the bill.

And remember that Pearce already snookered his Republican colleagues by promising not to promote this bill in order to win his Senate presidency, and then promptly reneging on it. They demanded the promise because they know that their most important job should be resuscitating the state's economy, not trying to strip Latino children of their citizenship and embroiling the state in another disastrous controversy.

Oh well. Arizonans are getting what they deserve for electing these fools and cretins.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

DeVore, Fiorina Fight It Out For The Populist Prize By Joining Beck In Blaming Everything On Progressives

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck yesterday had on both of the Republican candidates in the California Senate primary, the winner of which race will be facing Barbara Boxer. And both Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina worked hard to curry Beck's favor, though it isn't hard to figure out which one won, judging by Beck's headline: "Is Chuck DeVore the next Scott Brown?"

Both interviews were essentially explorations by the candidates of Glenn Beck's favorite theme, to wit, progressives are the root of all evil in American life. This was especially the case in the interview with DeVore, who actively stoked Beck's fetish about Woodrow Wilson:

DEVORE: Well, Woodrow Wilson and people like Frank Goodnow, about 130 years ago, saw the Constitution as a roadblock to their plans for perfecting government and for basically ushering in a paradise on earth. And instead of what was set up by Madison to be a separation of powers, with the legislative, the executive and the judicial, because the Founders understood that people like power. And that you'll end up with tyranny in your country if you can't separate the powers.

...

BECK: I think the system is full of — it's riddled with a disease called progressive. If you've got cancer, no doctor says, yes start using filter tips cigarettes. They say no more cigarettes.

DEVORE: Right.

BECK: Progressives and the progressive idea are the cigarettes. So you tell me how to fix it.

Ah, nothing like a little eliminationism in the afternoon, is there?

Predictably, DeVore also revealed himself as one of those Patriot "tenthers" frequently promoted by Beck -- right-wing extremists who believe the Tenth Amendment gives states the ability to nullify federal law:

DEVORE: Well, first of all, we have to follow the Constitution. That's the very first thing that any lawmaker does when they get sworn in.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: This audience won't, but most people say well, where aren't we following the Constitution?

DEVORE: Well, where do we start?

I think a good obvious place is Tenth Amendment. As a state lawmaker, I find my powers as a state lawmaker being short-circuited at the federal level.

As we've explained, these theories originated in the 1990s with the militia/Patriot movement.
Fiorina, in contrast, was perfectly corporate even as she tried to assure Beck that she really was a populist:



Mostly she did this by joining Beck in the progressive-bashing:

BECK: Yes, I understand that. But here's the — here's the problem.

We have — go back and read — I read it last night, Calvin Coolidge and his — first, his inaugural speech. OK?

He knew what the problem was. The problem was the progressives. The problem in Washington are the progressives. The problem in California, the progressives. And the progressives in the Democrat and the Republican Party.

FIORINA: Yes. And so —

BECK: Until you — until somebody stands up and says, "You know what, John McCain and Barack Obama had many of the same traits."

Beck clearly suspects that Fiorina may have such "traits" as well. Which is why the teabaggers are all lining up behind DeVore.

Stuart Varney is a lying scumbag. Just sayin'.

-- by Dave

Megyn Kelly invited the resident expert in all things British at Fox, Stuart Varney, on to discuss that sensational story from the Telegraph claiming that the Obama administration was selling British nuclear secrets to the Russians.

Of course, Varney believes every word of the story, even though it has in fact been pretty readily debunked. And lots more, too:

VARNEY: There's an increasing feeling in Britain that the American administration doesn't like the British, for whatever reason.

KELLY: What's the evidence of that?

VARNEY: Well, there's two symbolic items, and two more serious items. To first, the symbolism: The first act of President Obama when he walks in the White House -- send back a bust of Winston Churchill, the great statesman between America and Britain. Second --

KELLY: Why did he do that?

VARNEY: Because his father -- President Obama's father -- disliked the colonial administration in his native Kenya.

Varney then described the other supposed anti-British offenses: the White House's clumsy gift gaffe of presenting the Queen with an iPod; the administration's ardent prosecution of British Petroleum over the catastrophic Gulf oil spill; and now, the supposed nuclear-secrets release.

Kelly ran through these and actually demonstrated that they're all either nonsense -- such as the supposed "secrets" release, which has been debunked by the State Department (it seems we've been providing Russia with this information since 1991, and everyone has known about it) -- or otherwise perfectly explicable. But she was at a loss on the Churchill-bust charge, which Varney again asserted has convinced Britons that President Obama "dislikes" them:

KELLY: But the thing about the bust -- has the White House ever come out publicly to explain why they sent that bust back?

VARNEY: It was apparently because President Obama's father, who was a native Kenyan --

KELLY: Have they admitted that?

VARNEY: I believe that is out there. I've not read the formal statement. But an explanation was requested. And the explanation was that Obama's father, being a native Kenyan, disliked the British colonial rule in Kenya, which ended in 1963.

Now, the folks at Media Matters are more polite than I am. They called this a "fact-free Obama smear and a "betrayal of reality." Actually, this is just a flat-out baldfaced lie.

Because in reality, back when the explanation was requested, a very clear one was given by both the White House and the British embassy: The bust had been a loan to the White House that expired with President Bush's tenure and was simply due to be returned.

A British Embassy spokesman said: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.

"It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009."

Varney is right in at least one respect, though: This theory linking the return of the bust to Obama's father and his Kenyan background has been "out there" alright -- floating around the GlennBeckosphere since at least last summer, when Beck adopted Dinesh D'Souza's cockamamie theory that Obama is secretly an anticolonialist, just like his father from whom he was utterly estranged and for whom he had no known affinity.

As Matt Gertz observes at MM, in a sane and rational world in which journalistic standards actually meant something, Varney would be fired for this kind of naked race-baiting:

That is an extraordinary and -- if true -- damning allegation. Such allegations, when made on an avowed "straight news" program, demand evidence. But Varney offered no evidence whatsoever. Instead, Varney portrayed his claim as conventional wisdom that is "out there."

One of two things is true: Either Fox News is sitting on a story that would be massively damaging to the Obama administration, or they are employing a hack who pushes libelous, evidence-free speculation during its news reports.

It's pretty obvious that Door No. 2 is the only one that's going to open. But at Fox News, it will almost certainly make no difference.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The Reagan Mythology: It has little to do with the man

-- by Dave

[H/t commenter Mugsy]

It was pretty hard this weekend to find anything but warm, gushing encomiums to Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday anywhere on the teevee -- particularly at Fox, where the fawning coverage doubled as an opportunity to bash President Obama. The one exception was this brief report from ABC News' Jake Tapper.

While far from complete, it at least covers some of the more significant differences between the real president that Ronald Reagan was and the fake myths about him that have become enmeshed in right-wing conventional wisdom since -- and thus embedded as truth for mainstream media.

But really, this only points to the larger truth about this whole weekend's worth of praise for Reagan, which included a special halftime program at the Super Bowl, fergawdsake. As Charles Pierce adroitly observes:

By way of historical comparison, the centennial of Franklin D. Roosevelt's birth took place in 1982. The halftime entertainment at that year's Super Bowl -- the telecast not yet having been blown up to 96.5 hours -- consisted of Up With People singing a medley of Motown hits. Somewhere between those two events is something that says a great deal about this nation, not much of it encouraging. Maybe the NFLPA should change its acronym to PATCO and eliminate all confusion.

Much as Reagan himself was during his presidency, his image is now functionally just a stand-in for conservative-movement ideology. Whatever conservatives need him to be now, that's what the Reagan Myth stands for -- even though, as Jon Perr points out, today's Tea Partiers would call Reagan a RINO.

And that's why, as Will Bunch explores at length in his great book, Tear Down This Myth, there has evolved in fact a cottage industry around the mythologization of Ronald Reagan -- naming airports and boulevards and buildings after him, constantly burnishing his achievements, constantly celebrating various Reagan anniversaries, including slightly odd ones like his 100th birthday. This industry exists not to much to celebrate Reagan the actual president, but to embed conservative mythology in the nation's political landscape -- even after its disastrous consequences are made manifest:

There has always been a place for mythology in American democracy – the hulking granite edifices of the Capitol Mall in Washington are a powerful testament to that – but this nation has arguably never seen the kind of bold, crudely calculated and ideologically driven legend-manufacturing as has taken place with Ronald Reagan. It is a myth machine that has been spectacularly successful, launched in the mid-1990s when the conservative brand was at low ebb.The docudrama version of the Gipper’s life story, successfully sold to the American public, helped to keep united and refuel a right-wing movement that consolidated power while citing Reaganism – as separate and apart from the flesh-and-blood Reagan – for misguided policies from lowering taxes in the time of war in Iraq to maintaining that unpopular conflict in a time of increasing bloodshed and questionable gains.

As Bunch recently observed, in recalling the way the so-called liberal media attended to Reagan's funeral on bended knee:

The death of Reagan some six-and-a-half years ago, and the remarkable tenor – not to mention the depth -- of the news coverage, especially on cable TV news channels, marked something of a turning point. It showed the extent to which a vast content-hungry media world – much more extensive than when Reagan was president in the 1980s, when their main concern was the half-hour evening network newscast -- was eager to swallow the manufactured myths about Ronald Reagan, and thus honor what the unnamed TV executive told Hoagland, that “today history is what we say it is.” Any chance for an honest portrayal of Reagan and his presidency – the dangerous overreach of the Iran-contra scandal, the growing embrace of deficit spending (both in Washington and for credit-card-laden consumers), or even the positive idea that his greatest contribution to history was a heartfelt desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons (an idea out of step with modern conservative thinking) – has been tossed down the memory hole for the last decade.

What the American people have been news-fed instead has been an ideology loosely based on Reagan, called Reaganism – a notion that has led to the Tea Party’s hatred of anything involving government and the bogus ideas that taxes can only be cut or that diplomacy with America’s rivals is for wimps. With each passing election, more and more of the electorate is too young to have remembered or experienced the real Ronald Reagan, yet are searching for an idealized president based on these right-wing perpetrated fallacies. Many of the worst aspects of the George W. Bush presidency – more tax cuts for the rich, soaring deficits, and “axis of evil” bluster – were rooted in this legend of a man who wasn’t there.

My own recollection of Reagan was that he destroyed the Republican Party for moderate Republicans such as I was at the time, especially by empowering the Religious Right. It drove people like me out of the GOP, and we've never looked back.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Bill O'Reilly wants to assure us that Fox News isn't 'out to get' President Obama. Uh-huh.

-- by Dave

Bill O'Reilly phoned in to Fox News' Happening Now program this morning to talk over his interview with President Obama with Martha MacCallum retrospectively.

O'Reilly's real impressions sound like classic cases of projection: He thinks, among other things, that the president is "thin-skinned" and probably "self-centered." Indeed. Our impression of O'Reilly exactly.

And then he tried to pull a fast one:

MACCALLUM: I also want to get your thoughts -- at the very beginning of the interview, I appreciated that you took a moment to thank him, and to thank the administration, for some help that they gave us at Fox News in helping two of our colleagues, Greg Palkot and Olaf Wiig, and the whole thing kind of reminded me too of that moment, way back, when they talked about the fact that Fox News wasn't a news organization. And clearly we were treated in a very respectful way in this whole thing. I just wanted to get your thoughts on all that.

O'REILLY: Well, look, you have to understand that interview that we did yesterday was the most widely viewed interview of all time, because of the Internet -- you know, the moment it was done it was all over the world, everybody was looking at it. And I wanted people who don't know Fox News, and all they hear about is the liberal media defining us, to know that we don't have any personal animus against the president of the United States -- and he did, and Robert Gibbs and the State Department did really, really good work in helping Palkot and Wiig. That's the truth. So why not say that?

And why not say that to him? And I wanted him to get the message that, look, we're not out to hurt you. We the network. There might be guys like Hannity and Beck who really feel that you're not a good president and your policies are destructive. But we have other people on the staff who feel the opposite.

So, yes, Fox News is skeptical of President Obama, more so than the liberal networks, of course. We're not personally invested in hurting him and I think that that statement up top was true. It needed to be said. It was in the context of the event, and I'm glad I said it.

Of course they don't hate President Obama at Fox News. They just call publicly wish for him to fail and announce their intention to make him fail. They just call him a racist, a socialist, a fascist, a radical Marxist revolutionary, and an America-hater.

But hey, it's nothing personal. Really.

And those "staff" members who "feel the opposite"? OK, my guess is that they're all members of the janitorial staff. Because you'll sure as hell never see them on the air at Fox News.



[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Fox talkers use Reagan's birthday as an opportunity to bash Obama

-- by Dave

As you might imagine, Fox News was practically a nonstop Ronald Reagan 100th birthday commemorative channel over the weekend, with practically wall-to-wall coverage of events and speeches at the Reagan Library. And at times it was so maudlin that it was embarrassing.

Pretty typical of this was a segment yesterday featuring Greg Jarrett and Casey Stegall discussing the day's events, as Stegall gushed over what a moving tribute it all was, and Jarrett eagerly agreed.

And of course, this also meant that Fox couldn't miss the chance to bash President Obama by comparison. So immediately afterward, Heather Childers -- a new weekend co-anchor at Fox -- came on with a George W. Bush lackey named Christian Whiton, speculating about how Reagan might have handled the crisis in Egypt.

Interestingly, Whiton insisted that Reagan would have been on the side of the pro-democracy marchers because "he just believed in freedom that much."

Then he and Childers proceeded to slag Obama:

CHILDERS: You just mentioned 'tear down this wall' -- four words, changed the worlds, helping end Communism, and of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall -- those words, pretty straightforward, unlike President Obama's initial words to Hosni Mubarak calling for an 'orderly transition.' Did Obama do the right thing initially?

WHITON: No. And you know, Ronald Reagan also believed in being somewhat concise in foreign policy, especially the big goals. And he knew what was really behind the threats we faced -- he had spent the better part of three decades before he took office in 1981 thinking about the threat from Russia -- not just its more apparent manifestations like the Red Army in Eastern Europe, the Red Army in Afghanistan, ICBMs, but understood what drove it, the Communist ideology. And he understood that ultimate victory meant undermining Communism.

But in the same way, not only President Obama but his predecessor in the White House have not really made the same analogy of our current conflict. We haven't identified Islamism as the chief thing that unites groups from Al Qaeda to the Islamic Brotherhood, the Hezbollah. Nor have we figured out how to fight it, and President Obama, the Obama administration saying that it would be fine for the Muslim Brotherhood to be part of a future Egyptian government shows that our Washington foreign-policy establishment really doesn't understand today's threats the way Ronald Reagan used to.

CHILDERS: And while President Reagan had some dramatic successes, there still remain some questions regarding his policies with South Africa and apartheid. He maintained a constructive-engagement policy. Are there lessons to be learned from that in dealing with Egypt.

WHITON: There are. You know, President Reagan was a very principled person, but he was not a Boy Scout, nor should we want our presidents to be Boy Scouts. You know, one analogy, the Philippines was run by an autocrat, and we partnered with that autocrat, Ferdinand Marcos, out of necessity, because the bigger objective we were working toward was the defeat of Communism. But we still always behind the scenes and sometimes in front of the scenes put pressure on Marcos to reform politically, to liberalize. And then when the Filipinos took to the streets to demand his ouster, we helped facilitate that ouster. So you can work with unsavory characters, and unfortunately often you have to do that in diplomacy, but keeping your eyes on the bigger picture, which at that point was the defeat of Communism, and at this point ought to be the defeat of Islamism -- you know, keep your eye on that ball and you'll do OK. And I think Ronald Reagan knew that.

CHILDERS: It's so obvious from the ceremony today -- Ronald Reagan followed words with action -- he believed in being clear -- famously called for the Soviet Union, called it an 'evil empire' -- pretty clear words. Do you think Obama's problem is that he appears to waver, or was that necessary in the initial stages of the revolution going on in Egypt?

WHITON: Well, there was tremendous wavering at first, then the president came out and said a few positive things about democracy and freedom, but he has no credibility on that issue, and actions have not been followed with words. You can't say that and then turn around later and say that, you know, the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood ought to be welcomed into an Egyptian government. You can't welcome people into your political system who want to destroy that political system unless you're willing to have it be destroyed.

You know, Reagan backed up his rhetoric against the Soviet Union -- we supported freedom movements in the Eastern Bloc, we supported Solidarity in Poland, we fielded a 600-ship Navy, a Strategic Defense Initiative missile defense, all sorts of other things. So when President Obama, and frankly before him, with President George W. Bush, when they say nice things about democracy, people around the world judge us on our actions, not on our words, and frankly, actions haven't followed words as they did under the Reagan administration.

This is all just so incoherent that it's laughable. If Ronald Reagan was so clear and straightforward about dealing with threats to the United States, then how does Whiton explain the fact that Reagan secretly traded arms for hostages in his dealings with Iran?

Indeed, Reagan's "clarity" and obsessive focus on Communism at the expense of all other potential threats led to the Reagan administration financing and creating monsters who later became real threats to American security themselves. We can't forget, after all, that is was the Reagan administration that propped up the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom we later engaged not just in one but in two wars. Nor can we forget that it was the Reagan administration that underwrote the Afghanistan resistance that then gave birth to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But comparing Mubarak to Marcos is indeed worthwhile -- though not in the way Whiton seems to think. Because in fact the Reagan administration -- which had been Marcos' staunchest ally -- notoriously dithered while the "People Power Revolution" gathered. It was only when Marcos' removal became a fair accompli that the Reagan White House acted to help him remove to Hawaii -- absconding with millions of dollars in gold bullion certificates.

In contrast, the Obama administration has been a model of quiet consistency on the situation in Egypt, where it has been pushing Mubarak to liberalize consistently, and has been consistent in supporting the pro-democracy forces marching in the streets, as Whiton clearly believes we should.

Meanwhile, right on Fox News, we have right-wingers like Dick Morris arguing loudly that, in order to defeat Islamism -- which Whiton thinks is our top priority now -- we need to strongly support Mubarak and his thugs.

Really, right-wingers can't seem to be able to decide whether to crap or go blind when it comes to Obama and Egypt. The only thing they know: Obama Bad, Reagan Good.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Camille Grammer touches on Fox's toxic effects on our personal lives

-- by Dave

Normally I'm about as interested in Hollywood divorces as I am in grass-growing competitions and NASCAR, but I thought Camille Grammer's dissing of her ex-husband, wingnut actor Kelsey Grammer, was interesting for what it said about the state of our national discourse and how that filters down into our private lives and personal relationships.

Camille Grammer, interviewed early this week on Joy Behar's HNN show, indicated early on that she and her now-ex-husband no longer saw eye-to-eye politically. And that seemed to be part of a larger drifting apart in the relationship, because they no longer had sex, either:

BEHAR: Was it his fault or your fault or both?

GRAMMER: It could be both, but it was more on his end.

BEHAR: More on his end?

GRAMMER: Yes.

BEHAR: OK, well then again, good to be rid of him.

GRAMMER: [Laughs] You know. I miss intimacy. I think that's a really important part of a marriage, is to be intimate with your partner. And we didn't really have that.

BEHAR: It really is nice. But cuddling is fun.

GRAMMER: Oh, I love cuddling.

BEHAR: You didn't do that.

GRAMMER: He was too busy watching Fox News. He didn't want to cuddle.

BEHAR: Well, there's a real turn-on.

Of course, when Fox's Bret Baier ran an item on this yesterday -- minus any video -- he was properly appalled: "Fox News has been blamed for a lot of thing, but this probably takes the cake."

And on the superficial level of Hollywood divorces, it would be silly indeed to read too much into this. It is, after all, purely anecdotal evidence from a single relationship.

Nevertheless, the general phenomenon she's describing is a dynamic I believe has been repeated on a massive scale over the past decade and more: friendships, family relationships, marriages and other close personal relationships soured because one of the two people involved has become a fanatical devotee of movement conservatism, particularly through the cultlike auspices of talk radio and Fox News TV -- and the other person in the relationship does not.

We've all encountered it: former college pals, or hometown buds, or old flames, or coworkers, or brothers-in-law, or grandfathers -- all convinced now that you've become a bad person because you're aiding and abetting those evil liberals in their attempt to destroy America. And what happens on an interpersonal scale is often ugly. It happens at Thanksgiving tables, at weddings and family reunions, when you go home to visit and see your old friends, or at work with people you've been friends with for years.

There are several reasons for it. The first is that the relentless message of the right-wing talkers, whether at Fox or on the radio, is simple and unmistakable: Liberals are bad people, sick in their souls, and they want to destroy America and your way of life. Day and day out, that's the message the True Believers get. And boy, do they believe it.

The second is that, as Nicole reported awhile back, it's been definitively established that Fox News watchers are deliberately malinformed -- that is, they believe a broad array of things that are factually untrue, but have been told by Fox News that they are true:

Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate.

As we've explained on many occasions, this kind of rhetoric alienates people from reality -- including the people who choose to live in that reality. By functionally unhinging people -- there is no other way to describe the effect of persuading people to believe, doggedly and unshakably, in things that are provably untrue, even in the fact of irrevocable factual evidence -- it serves to drive a real wedge between them and everyone else, while conversely forging powerful bonds with the like-minded.

Finally, it must be understood that the mission of both Fox News and talk radio is not merely to propagandize with disinformation, but also to inflame. This is why conspiracy theories -- which, functionally speaking, are narratives intended to induce simultaneous feelings of powerlessness and paranoia -- abound on Fox News. There's no one quite as congenitally angry as a congenital Fox Watcher.

No wonder Grammer didn't want to snuggle. What Fox News does is make people want to go out and beat up liberals. As Joy Behar says: What a turn-on, eh?

This isn't a problem just affecting Hollywood marriages. It's affecting millions of personal relationships, and in a decidedly poisonous way. Fox News, as Bill O'Reilly likes to say about the "far left," really is bad for America -- bad for our politics, bad for national discourse, and really, really bad for our friendships and family ties, the very real fabric of our society.



[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Hannity and Bozell bash media -- especially Chris Matthews -- for insufficient fearmongering over Egypt

-- by Dave

The right-wing Media Research Center's Brent Bozell was on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night to talk about how horrible the American media have been in covering the situation in Egypt. How have they been horrible? Why, apparently because they aren't being sufficiently Becklike in fearmongering over an imminent radical Islamist takeover:

BOZELL: What happens when the government crumbles? What happens when this country is reduced to utter anarchy? What happens when the killings begin and the death begins? Are they still going to credit Barack Obama's soaring oratory for that, or are they going to separate them? What happens if an Islamic caliphate takes over? Are they going to credit his soaring oratory at that point? No they won't.

And what happens, Brent Bozell, if the government remains standing but reconstitutes itself as a democratic republic? What happens when the violence subsides? Will you and Hannity be going on the air and abjectly apologizing to your audiences and the American public and President Obama and to your media colleagues for needlessly fearmongering and spreading panic?

Um, no. You won't.

But Bozell reserved his special reservoir of venom for Chris Matthews, who dared compare the Muslim Brotherhood to the Tea Party. This, of course, made Hannity's an Bozell's collective pea-sized brains explode:

BOZELL: Look, I listen to Chris Matthews and I have two reactions to that. My first reaction is, 'Let's put aside civility for just a minute and to say, I'm just so sick and tired of these disgusting, horrible, despicable attacks, I'm going to slug you and deck you one of these days.'

But that's wrong. That's the wrong reaction. The right reaction is to listen to him, and to listen to him clearly, and just start laughing at the guy.

Look, if a meteor came out of the heavens and hit New York City, he would blame the Tea Party for it. He would blame Michele Bachmann for it.

HANNITY: No. He would probably blame George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. Let's be honest.

BOZELL: Yeah, but if it hit Fox News, he would say it's OK.

Yeah, and if it his NBC News instead, Bozell and Hannity would say it was OK.

Especially because we know that "first reaction" is, for right-wing clowns like these two, the one we're going to get most of the time. Especially when it's being encouraged by top-tier pundits on a cable network with an audience of millions.

Oh, but if a liberal protester is overheard saying nasty things, why, that's proof positive that it's the "left" that cannot be civil.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Beck wonders about his Egypt/China/New Zealand/Europe theory: 'Is it so farfetched, really?' Um, yeah, it is.

--by Dave

Glenn Beck seems to be a little nonplussed that everyone is pointing and laughing at his typically GlennBeckian apocalyptic conspiracist take on the events in Egypt.

On his Fox News show yesterday he basically doubled down:

They were reacting with surprise afterwards, you know, like what? I've never heard that. Because she's 100 percent wrong.

First of all, that's not the network's theory. That's not Fox's theory. That's my theory. My theory. And it's not Van Jones or anything else.

Let me ask you this, let's start here. Since when is having a theory when you're trying to figure out what's going on a bad thing in America?

And it's really less theory than it is facts in their own words. But, just in case, let me show you what my "theory" is. And I stand by it. Everybody on the left, this is my theory and I stand by every word of it.

Groups from the hardcore socialists and communist left and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of Israel and the Jews.

It's not just capitalism, it's not the United States, it's your way of life in the West. And I stand by that.

Groups from the hardcore socialist left and communism and extreme Islam will work together to overturn relatively -- relative stability because in the status quo, they are both ostracized from power and the mainstream in most parts of the world.

That's -- here, I'll even put it up for you -- Glenn's theory. Here it is. Got it?

That's it and I stand by it. Is it so farfetched, really?

Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Dick Morris thinks Obama administration should back Mubarak and his thugs, 'aggressively confront' protesters

-- by Dave

Dick Morris has always given me the creeps, because he just gives off this nasty toe-sucking-troll-who-lives-under-the-bridge vibe. I guess after last night, we can make that a fascist toe-sucking troll:

MORRIS: I think that what Mubarak should be doing and what the Obama administration should be doing is aggressively confronting the demonstrators. I think that if we encourage the military to stand down, if we encourage the Mubarak supporters to refrain from controversy or even from violence, we really are opening the door to Islamic fundamentalist domination.

That was Morris describing why President Obama is really to blame for the crisis in Egypt to Laura Ingraham last night on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor. Notice that Morris couches the words so that he's not directly calling for the American administration to engage in acts of violence, but he does clearly say we should openly condone and support a dictator's street thugs in committing acts of violence.

This came as part of Morris' ongoing campaign to claim the President Obama "lost Egypt", or as he put it last night, Obama "broke Egypt, and now he owns it" -- a claim that seems to be gaining some circulation at Fox, which is increasingly desperate for anything, anything it can grasp for attacking Obama in this situation.

Even Dick Morris's disgusting grunts from under the bridge.

Todd Gregory at Media Matters has more.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Bully BillO comes out to smack Colmes for daring to suggest liberals don't hate America

-- by Dave

Now here's an irony: Bill O'Reilly accusing Al Jazeera of being anti-Semitic because it includes guests who clearly fit that description. Meanwhile, the Glenn Beck Anti-Semitic Elephant in the room goes politely ignored.

Of course, what this was really about was, once again, right-wing Fox talkers like O'Reilly and Monica Crowley using unrest abroad as a way to smear liberal Americans as insufficiently patriotic. And so when Alan Colmes called them out for it, his reward was to get the BillO the Bully Full-On Nasty treatment.

It happened last night on O'Reilly's opening "Talking Points Memo" segment:

"Talking Points" could provide hundreds of examples of anti-Semitism and "hate America" rhetoric displayed on Al Jazeera, the network Sam Donaldson admires.

And he's not alone. Here's what Brian Stelter wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday: "As recently as Friday, the conservative Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly branded Al Jazeera as 'anti-America.' … But that view has been largely drowned out by people like [Sam] Donaldson who have hoisted up Al Jazeera English for its protest coverage."

Totally absurd. Any fair-minded person who follows Al Jazeera knows it is anti-American and anti-Semitic. Only on the far left can it find acceptance.

Sure. And it's true that it's there are many examples of anti-Semitic guests on Al Jazeera -- just as it's true that Fox has had on its airwaves a broad assortment of nativists and other far-right extremists over the years as well.

But even more important, one of Fox News' leading anchors -- and a frequent onstage and on-air cohort of O'Reilly's -- is under siege from Jewish rabbis outraged by Beck's anti-Semitic slurs of George Soros and his obscene overuse of Nazi and Holocaust comparisons and metaphors.

Oh well. That -- like any criticism of the network at all -- is NEVER mentioned at Fox.

Because as the segment that followed with Colmes and Crowley amply demonstrated, this was less about bashing Al Jazeera and was really all about bashing liberals -- as Crowley made explicit. And that set off the fireworks:

CROWLEY: Well, I -- I don't want to attribute this directly to Sam Donaldson but I would say to make a broader point that the far left in this country is essentially anti-American.

COLMES: Oh please, now that's disgusting.

CROWLEY: They are -- and so a lot of their -- a lot of their philosophy.

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: That's disgusting. That's sickening.

CROWLEY: I'm not saying you, Colmes, I'm saying the broader far left has an anti-American agenda that in many ways dovetails…

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: Who, who? Tell me who? Who on the left?

CROWLEY: …with the kind of reporting -- reporting that we see come out of Al Jazeera.

O'REILLY: She's saying the far left.

COLMES: Who? Who? Who are you calling anti-American? I'm so tired of people calling people on my side anti-American.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Are you a far-left guy?

COLMES: I don't know. You have called me that.

O'REILLY: Sometimes your positions are far left.

COLMES: All right, fine. But am I anti-American?

O'REILLY: I don't think you're anti-American. But certainly the far left is taking anti-American positions.

COLMES: But look, but let's stop this name-calling. Let's stop demonizing anybody you don't agree with and call them anti-American.

O'REILLY: I just ran a "Talking Points Memo" that backed up, all right, with four specific things that this is an anti-Semitic, anti-American network and I could do 40 of them.

COLMES: But you said those were people on the network as guests.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: There is no counter. Why don't you grasp this? I'm getting a little mad at you. Grasp this! There is no counter on it, you got it? There is no counter on it!

COLMES: Yes, I hear what you say. It's free speech.

O'REILLY: So it's this, yes, it's free speech. Shouldn't be praised by a pinhead like Donaldson.

Nor should O'Reilly's speech be praised ... by anyone. Smearing, lying, and bullying should get you removed from the airwaves, not enshrined as one of cable's most prominent anchors.

Memo to BillO: There is a big "counter" hanging around your neck. And his name is Glenn Beck.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Right-wingers don't care if Planned Parenthood video was already exposed as a hoax -- they'll do it live!

-- by Dave

It tells you just how degraded our national discourse has become -- how utterly corrupted by the Fox Propaganda Channel it has been -- that two of its leading anchors can run an entire segment legitimizing a hoax video tape, even though its contents were exposed as a hoax even before they were released. And no one even so much as raises an eyebrow.

That's what happened last night on The O'Reilly Factor, when Bill O'Reilly and Fox's John Stossel devoted an entire segment to attacking Planned Parenthood as "disgusting" for the supposed behavior revealed in another Breitbartesque attack by video hoax on another liberal institution.

O'Reilly and Stossel, however, then use the affair to launch into attacking Planned Parenthood for receiving taxpayer subsidies -- and that really is what they're on about. Interestingly, Stossel uses the logic that because some people see abortion as murder, they are being forced to underwrite murder in their views -- a position O'Reilly ardently adopts as well.

Peculiar that neither of them apply the same logic elsewhere: Many people see killing innocent civilians in the course of a war as murder too -- something our tax dollars likewise heavily underwrite. But you'll never see an O'Reilly segment attacking taxpayer funding for the DoD.

But what's truly disgraceful that they then dismiss the overwhelming fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported these "sex traffickers" to authorities -- thereby exposing the hoax in progress. Here's their release of last week:

Last week, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) alerted federal authorities to a potential multistate sex trafficking ring. Over a five day period, visitors to Planned Parenthood health centers in six states said they were seeking information from Planned Parenthood about health services Planned Parenthood could provide to underage girls who were part of a sex trafficking ring. Subsequent to alerting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Planned Parenthood learned the identify of one of those involved and believes these visits are likely a hoax by opponents of legal abortion seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, which delivers preventive health care and abortion services to three million women each year.

Media Matters has the full details of the hoax.

Yet, in spite of all this, when Lila Rose and Co. published the video yesterday, it was widely treated through Unsurprisingly, the wingnutosphere ran whole-hog in embracing the video as legitimate, including the fine folks at National Review, RedState and Malkin's Hot Air.

Moreover, as Ned Resnikoff at Media Matters explored in some detail, Rose's video actually pretty clearly demonstrates the falsity of what she claims it shows:

In a so-called "sting" video professional hit artist Lila Rose claims to have uncovered evidence of systemic corruption within Planned Parenthood to cover up "child sex trafficking." Not only do Planned Parenthoods recent actions flatly contradict that claim -- so does the content of the video itself.

In fact, even if we were to assume that Rose's heavily edited smear job is accurate - and there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical - the video very clearly establishes that the alleged wrongdoing is counter to Planned Parenthood policy: the employee on Rose's tape makes it clear that the actions in question would have to be concealed from others at the organization.

You can judge for yourself. Here's the video:

[media id="19563" embed="true" image="true" download="true"]

People for the American Way also has a terrific rundown of the facts:

Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose, a photogenic young activist who Religious Right leaders hope to make the new face of the anti-abortion movement, claims that the video Religious Right groups are circulating “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of young girls it claims to serve.” False. In fact, far from proving a pattern of illegal activity, the Live Action project demonstrated that Planned Parenthood has strong institutional procedures in place to protect young women. When Live Action activists appeared at numerous facilities presenting themselves as seeking help with a child sex trafficking ring, Planned Parenthood wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an FBI investigation. Live Action attempted its “sting” across the country; the one Planned Parenthood staffer who violated those procedures and is featured in Live Action’s video was fired.

There's a lot more on Rose's background there as well.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Planet Beck nears critical mass with wingnutty theory about Egypt uprising,

-- by Dave

[media id="19554" embed="true" image="true" download="true"]

Like Steve Benen, I'm beginning to wonder if our favorite Big-Time Wingnuts are about to implode under the critical mass of their own overpowering wingnuttery. It seem as though Sarah Palin's bizarre "WTF" rant of the other night -- while not particularly spectacular in the context of a political career rich with embarrassing moments -- may have been the pebble that finally tipped even her reflexive defenders in the other direction. (You sure can't find anyone outside of Planet Palin who will defend it.)

Then there's Glenn Beck in the past couple of days. Conor Friedersdorf's reaction reflected the consensus: "the fact that Roger Ailes and his associates air this kind of nonsense –couched in these kinds of assurances! – is indefensible." As Benen says:

Over the last year or so, Fox News' Glenn Beck has lost about a third of his audience, which is a pretty significant drop, and may very well lead the deranged media personality to think of ways to bring viewers back.

One way, for example, may be for Beck to be even more creative when sharing crazy visions of global affairs. Yesterday, the strange man did his best to explain events in Egypt with a take that really has to be seen to be believed. Chris Hayes called it "a tour de force of paranoid ignorance," which sums it up nicely.

As you can see, all he's really doing is reinforcing what even some of Beck's Believers are now beginning to realize: that he's an ignoramus peddling cockamamie conspiracy theories with no regard to facts or truthfulness.

You see, Beck believes that events in Egypt are the culmination of conspiratorial forces he's been railing about for some time now -- essentially revolving around an obscure book by French anarchists that nobody is actually reading, The Coming Insurrection.

Basically, Beck foresees a Middle Eastern "Caliphate" overtaking Europe and China controlling big chunks of new territory, all fueled by a "Marxist" and "Islamist" conspiracy:

I believe that I can make a case in the end that there are three powers that you will see really emerge. One, a Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe. Two, China, that will control Asia, the southern half of Africa, part of the Middle East, Australia, maybe New Zealand, and God only knows what else. And Russia, which will control all of the old former Soviet Union bloc, plus maybe the Netherlands. I'm not really sure. But their strong arm is coming. That leaves us and South America. What happens to us?

Then Beck went on Bill O'Reilly's show and explained the nutshell version:

BECK: No, I think we're actually possibly the witnessing Archduke Ferdinand moment. Archduke Ferdinand was the guy who was killed -- shot, a few months later started the First World War. I think we're in real danger.

...

BECK: I understand that, but what you're not taking into account is that that is what the average person thinks, just like the average person on the street of -- of Cairo thinks they're swept up in some freedom movement. It is not about freedom. It is being orchestrated by the Marxists, communists and primarily also the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sean Easter and Todd Gregory at Media Matters have a thorough roundup of the madness, and conclude by observing:

All of this was offered up in service of his theory that the protests in Egypt are the manifestation of The Coming Insurrection, an obscure book that French police believe was written by a member of a small group of anarchists. Beck has repeatedly described the anonymous author (or authors) of the book as "communists." He's tied George Soros and President Obama to The Coming Insurrection, as well.

So, a diverse group of the Egyptian people are in the streets protesting an autocratic leader, and Glenn Beck has decided that this is directly connected to an anonymously written anarchist tract from France that he's been obsessing about for the past two years?

Normally, we are in the business of debunking the falsehoods and smears that Beck promotes. But how do you debunk pronouncements that quite obviously bear no relationship to reality?

The real question is: Why would anyone ever take this man seriously on any subject?


[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]