In an interview with Australia’s Sky News, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch falsely claimed that Fox News hosts had not “likened” President Obama to Josef Stalin. In fact, Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly drawn comparisons between Stalin and members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, and have also compared Stalin’s policies to Obama’s policies.

Read more at Media Matters.

As Priscilla noted during last year’s skirmish, the war on Christmas can be traced to white nationalism and anti-Semitism. It’s not a big leap. After all, it takes a special person to use a holiday season, not to celebrate its intended purpose, but to mount an offensive against other people for being too inclusive.

O’Reilly’s opening salvo was to gripe about the Governor of Kentucky proclaiming that the State Christmas tree had “morphed into the holiday tree.” “We were hoping this stuff wouldn’t happen this year but it has,” O’Reilly said. Oh, come on. It has become a tradition at Fox. It’s their special version of mistletoe – viewers can rev up their hatred for liberals every time they hear the word “holiday.”

Carlson, on the other hand, was overtly happy as a clam, or maybe that should be a lump of coal, to see the war begin. And she was already counting her first victory. She told O’Reilly, “Apparently calls like yours… changed (the governor’s) mind.”

Carlson continued by equating Christmas culture warriors with Tea Partiers: “I think that this is emblematic of what was going on this summer at the tea parties. I think that now Americans have the fight within them and they’re gonna stand up and they’re gonna be heard… I think it’s a new wave of democracy happening right before us.”

Hoover, however, was not joining the war party. Proclaiming herself a federalist, she said, “Leave it to the states… The bottom line, America is a pluralistic country We are multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-theistic. In order to all live together and get along, we’ve got to just get along.”

What a Scrooge!

Orignally posted on News Hounds.

FOX News is on a witch hunt.  Their goal is simple: to destroy the Obama administration and the progressive movement.  They’ve already forced Van Jones out of the White House.  They’ve badgered Congress into passing unconstitutional measures to defund ACORN.  Glenn Beck actually keeps an enemies list on a blackboard that’s a regular part of his show.

The Obama administration has it right:  FOX is not a legitimate news organization, it’s a 24-hour  political operation.  FOX News anchors spew venom and hate every hour of every day, while FOX News “personalities” routinely distort fact and propagate misinformation.

ACORN is just the beginning.  FOX has an enemies list, and they’re going to keep destroying progressive champions until we stop them.

Tell your Congressperson: If you vote to extend the “Defund ACORN Act,” you’re just assisting FOX in their anti-American witch hunt.

Fight back and sign the petition at http://defoxamerica.com.

Last week, on Bill O’Reilly’s “Culture Warriors” segment, our lady of the Gopher State, in discussing the dance moves of the cheerleaders in the video, said that “spreading your legs and shaking your booty” were “overtly sexual.” She didn’t like them “bending over.” When O’Reilly said that the routine was similar to the type of thing the Los Angeles Lakers cheerleaders did, Gretchen asserted that high school girls shouldn’t be emulating professional cheerleaders and that “racy” routines send the wrong message. But yet – but yet, this morning Fox&Friends features a routine, by the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, which features a great deal of booty shaking and bending over (in outfits far more revealing than the high school girls) to show that booty as, according to their coach, role models for anti obesity. And never shy about promoting products or programs, the brown haired guy who isn’t Steve Doocy, introduced Megan Fox (no, not that Megan Fox) a well cleavaged cheerleader who has a new reality show, about the training of the squad, on CMT (eeh, hah!). The music was “boom, boom, shake, now drop” by Pitbull. And while it is a great work out song, I do question the seeming cognitive dissonance between the Fox News moralizing about the lack of “family values” in librul Hollywood and lyrics like: “I wanna see ya work (work) that pole ’till ’till ’till you get sweaty. I wanna hit it from from the back. I promise you’ll like it if you let me.. Cause I like booty n tigg ol bittys…Don’t be scared shake that thang…We got plenty of cash girl.You you call your friends n then I I call my friends N we can do the thang in the back back of the benz..” (Yo, yo, Bill O’Reilly, there are videos of this available which you could use for your “culture warriors” thang. I know you’re not a rap fan; but you do appreciate “tigg ol bittys…”).

It’s all so confusing. On one hand, we have “culture warriors” saying that women should be appreciated for their minds and that impressionable young women shouldn’t be emulating professional cheerleaders while at the same time we have “boom, boom, shake, now drop.” As I’ve said before, there’s something for everyone at Fox Opinion News. Oh, and if you want to get Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader DVD’s, the information is on the video. And BTW, it’s not that I’m jealous of the cheerleaders who aerobically and physically are in fantastic shape – it’s the weird yin and yang, dare I say hypocrisy, of Fox Opinion News.

Orignally posted on News Hounds.

Neil Cavuto joined the chorus of other Fox News hosts yesterday (10/12/09) in whining about White House communications director Anita Dunn’s strong words about Fox News, calling it “either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.” On yesterday’s Your World, Cavuto used his “Common Sense” editorial segment to hit back at Dunn.

Cavuto: So, I’m hearing an awful lot about how the White House communications director hates Fox, really, really hates Fox…

“Anita Dunn saying… ‘Let’s not pretend they’re a news network.’ …Lately, it’s been her shtick. Her game. So, Ms. Dunn, let’s continue playing it. Let’s pretend you’re serious. Let’s pretend you’re not a tad – oh, I don’t know – thin-skinned. Let’s pretend you get your facts straight on whether we thoroughly reported Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign’s affair, which we did, or only trash Democrats and not Republicans… Let’s pretend you are open to criticism. Let’s pretend you see alternative points of view on health care. Let’s pretend when someone opposes your view, they might have a point… Let’s pretend you have a memory and recall Fox programs like this one disparaging last year’s financial rescues and whether they were pouring good money after bad. Let’s pretend you know history, and recall that a Republican was in the White House back then, and a Republican Treasury Secretary refused to come on this very show back then… Let’s pretend you work for the United States and not some left-wing blog in the United States… And let’s pretend you care about all of our independent viewers and aren’t being just careless about those viewers’ cares… just as we should pretend you’re not overwrought and snapping. Maybe you’re just over worked and snippy.”

Comment: Let’s pretend, Neil, that you don’t interrupt more Democrats than Republicans in your interviews. Let’s pretend, Neil that you have liberal regulars to counter Art Laffer, Charles Payne and Craig Smith of Swiss America. Let’s pretend, Neil, that your Common Sense comments, while sometimes very good, don’t lean mostly to the right. Let’s pretend that Faux is fair and balanced.

Orignally posted on News Hounds.

If you click through to the post, the first sentence opens, not with any kind of pride or congratulatory spirit with a swipe at the prize as “befuddling” and a baseless suggestion that the committee awarded it out of a socialist agenda. Of course, the unstated suggestion (also unfounded by any accompanying facts) is that Obama won it because he’s a socialist.

With the choice of President Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize inspiring such widespread befuddlement, it seems worthwhile to ask, just who are these people who made this choice, and what might their agenda be

The post goes on to note that Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland “admiringly” held a photo of Obama and “spoke gushingly” of him in the news stories about the award. Uh-oh! A foreigner speaking well of our President? Something evil must be afoot!

Sure enough, Fox Nation sussed out the smears so that we don’t have to.

Some stories have reported that he is the former prime minister of Norway, and that he was the leader of the Norwegian Labor Party for 10 years. But he recently completed an even more interesting 10-year tenure.

From 1999 through 2008, Jagland was vice president of Socialist International. What’s that? It’s exactly what the name suggests – an international organization of socialist groups who advocate for far left policies.”

Fox Nation proves once again how much they really love America.

But wait, there’s more. The comments show the same kind of love for America. “If you support this President, you are a socialist,” says “Captain Obvious,” at 02:18 PM today. And there’s this lovely comment from “be” that the moderators found a suitable example of how Fox Nation shows its commitment to the “core principles of tolerance, open debate and civil discourse:” “Do muslim knuckle draggers slither out of their trailer parks with pork rinds hanging out of their mouths? I bet they do!!” Monday, October 12, 2009 at 01:59 PM. “be” had another lovely comment one minute earlier. “And look at the people who didn’t get it and are actually doing good work? Hussein Sparkle Ape doesn’t care!! He the narcissist in chief!!”
Monday, October 12, 2009 at 01:58 PM

Go to News Hounds

O’Reilly introduced last week’s interview by describing Richard Dawkins as “a committed atheist whose new book says that evolution should be taught to every child and faith based beliefs, like intelligent design, are hooey.” Bill couldn’t suppress a little sneer at the conclusion of his comment. O’Reilly began by saying how that when they last spoke, he and Dawkins discussed Dawkin’s last book,” The God Delusion” which, according to O’Reilly’s “interpretation,” is based on “atheism is good and those of us who believe are kind of sappy.” Bill showed a part of the interview where he told Dawkins that he “was throwing in with Jesus” because atheists can’t tell him “how it all got here.” After Dawkins said that science is making great progress, O’Reilly said that until they can figure it out, he’s “sticking with Judeo Christian philosophy.” Back to the present with Bill proclaiming that he believes in “creative design” (uh, does he mean “intelligent design?”) and following this up with “I believe in evolution” (are you confused? I was!) “but I think it was overseen by a higher power…because you guys haven’t figured it all out…” (Does Bill realize that “ID” is really repackaged creationism which denies evolution?) Dawkins got in an “oh, snap” moment when he said that is was “a most extraordinary leap of logic to say that because science can’t answer a question, you’re going to throw in your lot with Jesus.” Meanwhile, saccharine and garish pictures of Jesus were played across the screen.) Dawkins said that there is no real evidence “that Jesus did it either while science is actually working on the problem.”Bill claimed that “science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way and Jesus did” (Oh, really? Polio vaccines and other drugs that alleviate human suffering?) In an astounding and amazing ROFLMAO moment, Bill said that “if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus” (probably not a loofah fan) “that we’d have peace on earth” (pictures of Jesus, including a very Catholic “Sacred Heart” crowned Jesus, in background) “love your brother, everybody love on another…” (WTF? O’Reilly hates his “brother” if he’s liberal, gay, or non-Christian) But then, good Catholic Bill says that he’s “not 100% sure that Jesus is God…” but he “chooses to believe that” (WTF!) After Dawkins referenced Bill’s “muddled” thought process, Bill said he didn’t think his belief system “contradicted science” and that he can point to a “higher power” in his life (more images of Jesus and the cross were shown.) Bill, ever the victim, said that “you guys seem to look down on believers.” (Wonder if Bill has any Jews in his audience and what they think about Jesus’ role in evolution?)

The conversation got really interesting when Dawkins said that the problem “with you guys” is when those who have religious beliefs feel entitled to go into classrooms and tell science teachers what “they can or cannot teach.” He added that a religious belief is defensible it; but it should be left out of the science class. Bill asserted that it’s not fair to leave it out “when the science class is incomplete.” Bill got all excited when he claimed that the gap in theory has to “be explored” and that the Christian view should be “presented.” Dawkins asked Bill to listen and stop shouting. When he said that “just because science has a gap in it, that does not entitle you to turn to any alternatives…” Then, drum roll please, Bill said, “that’s fascism, for you to say that you can’t mention an alternative…men” (no women?) “more brilliant than you believe in a higher power…you insist that you can’t even mention it, that is fascism.” To Dawkins’ protestations, Bill said that the religious angle should be “discussed” in a presentation of “all the alternatives…except for Adam and Eve” (which Bill’s evangelical fans believe in literally)…”there are more believers than non believers.”

Comment: Does Catholic Bill know that the Catholic Church says that intelligent design is “not science and should not be taught in school alongside Darwinism?” Does Bill know that many “men” of science, who believe in evolution, are also believers – one of whom played a major role in the court case which resulted in the defeat of the Dover Pa. ID curriculum? Does Bill know that the director of the Vatican Observatory said this: “Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results.” Who knows? All I know is that Bill O’Reilly is still a pompous and uninformed ass who talks the talk about loving Jesus – but sure doesn’t walk the walk. Of all the O’Reilly interviews I’ve seen, this one might just be the strangest.

Yesterday, after Griff Jenkins botched his day-long attempt to crash an ACORN gathering, commenter Ferg at Daily Kos summarized the high point of Griff’s day:

Fox news guys whines about 1st amendment for 4 minutes while dodging questions about Fox propaganda from Adam, and while standing on a red bath mat in a tuxedo.

What did Griff Jenkins have to show for his work yesterday? Apparently, just this:

The sad reality is: that was the best part of our interaction that Jenkins could highlight to save face. (It was evidently the best part of Jenkin’s entire day that he could highlight…and will highlight again tonight on Glenn Beck.)

But I have to ask: How can it be satisfying to be Griff Jenkins? What on earth motivates someone to stand outside on a bathmat all day waiting for moments like the one above. How do you wake up in the morning and think, “I want to do that again!”

Here’s another moment that makes me ask what motivate’s him, from Wonkette’s DC teabagging coverage:

After wading through a sea of mud to reach the nothing on the other side, we saw these Fox News equipment bins, with a River Cuomo clone casually guarding them. (PSST: WE WANTED TO STEAL THE BINS!)

This guard was, as it happened, Griff Jenkins, but we did not recognize him. We did not recognize the most important celebrity at Teabagging Central!

We tried to spark a conversation with this lonely Fox News Equipment guard and asked, completely earnestly, “So are any famous Fox personalities going to show up today?”

He was silent for a few seconds and then mumbled something about Greta maybe coming later, but with the rain and the cold, ya know…

Wow. Griff, I’m sorry…but that sucks.

So, why do it? Why have Glenn Beck sending you out to do weird, embarassing stuff that moves the ball forward on no real agenda (did your conversation with me accomplish much for you, Griff? How about that picture above of you in the rain — did it move mountains?)

Maybe someone else has an answer. I don’t.

Also on Open Left.

I seem to recall that Bill O’Reilly got incensed over “hate speech” on liberal blogs. Does he ever read Fox Nation where the latest race baiting thread has a photo of Michelle Obama next to Carla Bruni, the wife of the French President. The Fox Nation readers are invited to “caption” it.

I seem to recall that Bill O’Reilly got incensed about the disrespectful treatment of Sarah Palin in an Emimem video. Does he ever read Fox Nation where racist (and other stupid and hateful) comments about our First Lady are just part of the terrain of a “nation” where ignorance, hatred, and racism are the “American Dream.” Stay classy, Fox Nation!

To see Fox’s history of attacking the Obamas, visit Fox Attacks.

(Also on News Hounds)

On Thursday, June 4, 2009, Glenn Beck devoted his entire show to attacking ACORN with what seemed to be reruns of past segments. But – lo and behold! – the show also included Beck’s get-together with BFF Bill O’Reilly from May 28 in which they seemed to finally be admitting that their evidence of any ACORN badness is pretty thin. But they didn’t let little details like lack of proof or factual verification stand in the way of a good smear. Beck even threw the Obamas into it, while also admitting it was pure speculation. Rock on!

Most real journalists catch wind of some corruption or something out of whack with some company or organization, do some investigating, and then, if it proves there’s something there, report on it. But Beck and O’Reilly, along with many of the Fox Newsies, have decided, for whatever reason (bigotry, desire to keep the minorities powerless, greed, pick one or all), that ACORN is corrupt (see my previous posts here, here and here). And, having made that decision, they reported on it. Then they belatedly tried to investigate it and got nowhere. And they reported on it some more. So, they then had ACORN people on to talk about it, got nowhere, but kept reporting on it. Now, according to them, the only way they’re going to get their proof of ACORN’s corruption is if ACORN provides it to them by opening its books. Remind me again why ACORN – or any right-minded organization – would do that? (Beck also admitted, however, that they might be able to prove something if some other news organizations were to join forces with FOX in its vendetta – basically do the heavy lifting.)

O’Reilly pontificated that President Obama “got into the Chicago left-wing machine of which ACORN is a part . . . .”

“Yes, Jeremiah Wright,” Beck helpfully interjected.

“That’s when you saw Reverend Wright,” O’Reilly trudged on, “When you saw the other nuts from the Weather Underground, he was in there. Now, some people believe that he believes the way they do, some people believe that. Some people say, ‘No, he was just using them to advance his career.’” I’m not gonna argue whether President Obama had dealings with Ayers or ACORN or not – I happen to believe that, even if President Obama had involvement with ACORN, so what? He was a community organizer; ACORN is the largest grassroots community organization in the country. And Bill Ayers, former radical or not, is a well-respected, nationally known educator.

“That stuff is riddled in his past,” Beck said indignantly. “And his wife is much more . . . I do, I don’t have any evidence, it’s what I believe.” Rock on!

“But you can’t prove . . . .” O’Reilly interjected.

“Bill, I don’t think anybody is going to be able to prove any of this stuff until the media pressure becomes so overwhelming that this organization cracks open,” Beck said earnestly.

“This theory . . . didn’t come from the right, it came from people inside of ACORN. They are left, they’re left, they’re inside,” Beck insisted. But if you have these “inside” contacts, how come all you can do is speculate? Could it be because these “inside contacts” are two disgruntled, not very forthcoming former ACORN board members who filed a lawsuit against ACORN without authorization? Could it be because you use people like Anita Moncrief – who never even worked for ACORN and was fired from Project Vote for theft – as a credible source? And isn’t it a bit of circular logic for you guys to rely on a thief like Moncrief to prove ACORN is corrupt, but you call ACORN corrupt because it has employees who stole from it by engaging in voter registration fraud?

“But it’s the bigger picture of how powerful are these people, what is their intent?” O’Reilly speculated, then, answering his own question, “I’ll tell you what their intent is – to make us into Denmark, to make us into a cradle-to-grave entitlement where everybody has the same, take from Beck and O’Reilly, give to Lenny and Squiggy, that’s what they want. Now if Lenny and Squiggy are heroin addicts, who cares? It doesn’t matter, you take from the people who work hard, you give to the layabouts.” O’Reilly, here’s a tip, for future reference: If you want to avoid being called “racist” and “bigot,” you might want to re-think that whole “poor people are heroin addicts and layabouts” thing.

And then Beck engaged in his closing monologue which seemed to be contemporaneous (not included in the video below): “ACORN fell . . . right into our view during the campaign. Accusations of voter fraud raised a lot of eyebrows, they had a lot of coverage and they weren’t too happy about it.” (Emphasis mine). Should I erect a billboard across the street from Fox News? It’s VOTER. REGISTRATION. FRAUD. As far as we know, nobody voted fraudulently as a result of fraudulent registration. Mickey Mouse didn’t show up with an ID and cast a vote.

Beck went on to say, “For many of our competitors on other networks, the election and inauguration of Barack Obama put the ACORN story to bed. Perhaps it’s hibernating in the halls of NBC and CBS and the NY Times [if so, maybe Fox should follow suit] – they don’t seem to have any real interest in learning the truth about who’s behind this organization and how corrupt it may be.”

“I guess . . . they don’t really care about how this organization hopes to change the way this country exists,” Beck continued earnestly. “Well, I do care. Fox cares. I think you care. Our efforts have led to accusations of racism . . . whatever. Left-wingers and ACORN supporters have accused us of covering the story to fire up your anger, and, you know, hope to get better ratings . . . whatever. All the charges that really have no merit. But the best offense is a good offense – for me, uncovering the truth is really all that matters here. Seeking the truth is all the justification that we need. For those who question our agenda, I offer this: We’ll continue to investigate.

“ACORN, open the books, let us see all of the tentacles, ignore our calls, fail to answer our questions if you want, stand in our way if you have to, but getting between Americans and the truth is not really a good place to be, because Americans will finally get the truth.”

Comment: I’m really impressed by how boldly you asked ACORN to throw open its books so you can hope to be able to prove something they MIGHT have done that you’ve already reported that they DID however many times – and now you need ACORN itself to help you pull your story from the ashes? You know, there’s a big difference between uncovering the truth and manufacturing what you want the truth to be – and at this point, you guys must be pretty desperate to uncover something or you’re gonna look like terrified, up-the-creek-without-a-paddle fools.

All in a day’s work on Fox News. Rock on.

(Also on News Hounds)