News Hounds

Sean Hannity And Guests Baselessly Theorize That Muslims Are More Radical Than "People Are Willing To Say Publicly"

During the “Great American Panel” segment of last night’s (11/11/09) Hannity, unrepentant bigot Sean Hannity made a blatant effort to promote Islamophobia by pushing his guests into baselessly saying they thought Muslims are more radical than people want to admit. There were no statistics cited, no evidence offered and Hannity had made no effort to research the issue. But all three panelists, each of whom is a Fox News contributor, responded that they thought so. With video.

]]> Near the end of the first “Panel” segment, Hannity asked, “Here’s the question that I think very few people are willing to ask. What percentage of people of the Muslim faith, Islamic faith, are actually, buy into, the more radical views of… radical extremism?”

Father Jonathan Morris said, “Religious motivation is extremely powerful.” He noted that Christian martyrs have been willing to give their lives for the sake of their faith. Then he added that Imams “have a tremendous responsibility to make sure, that whether or not they’re preaching to go out and kill people or not… if you have people in your congregation who you know might not be perfectly balanced… there’s a percentage… of those who are gonna take what you say…” Gee, I wonder if he’d say the same things about Christian clergy.

Hannity interrupted. “Here’s my exit question. Is it a higher percentage than people are willing to say publicly?”

Since Hannity had made no apparent effort to research this and offered no facts or figures, it was obvious that he was asking the question to induce an answer in the affirmative. Each panelist complied.

“Quick answer,” he prodded.

“Probably,” Nina Easton theorized.

“Yeah, I think it is,” Stephen Hayes said.

“You’d better believe it,” Morris answered.

Is Fox News' Increased Role In Republican Politics Bringing Diminishing Results?

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert has a very interesting column about the growing influence of the far-right media in Republican politics and its widening disconnect with voters. Boehlert writes:

It makes sense that, as a purely partisan player, Fox News would immerse itself in backroom horse-trading. It makes sense that rather than covering the campaigns and the candidates, Fox News would insert itself as a political player within Republican contests and throw its support behind a specific candidate, the way it did in NY-23.

The looming problem for the GOP, though, is that the right-wing media can't pick winners and stands poised to rip the Republican Party apart.

]]> Boehlert continues "...It's Fox News that sets the conservative agenda in America. It's at Fox News where partisan strategies are hatched, rallies are marketed, and smear campaigns are launched. And it's Republican politicians and traditional Beltway professionals who are forced to play catch-up to the conservative media." Noting the role of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in promoting conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, Boehlert writes, "It's a partisan press corps that no longer documents internal Republican squabbling; it initiates the infighting."

Boehlert predicts that there will inevitably be a "Fox News candidate" in the Republican primaries of 2012, "a far-right darling of the Tea Party movement (cough, cough, Sarah Palin) who has both the official (Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin) and unofficial (Fox News) endorsement of the right-wing media."

The big question is whether their hand-picked candidate can actually win an election.

It's Time To Hold Murdoch Accountable For Race Baiting On Fox News

As we previously reported, Rupert Murdoch is trying to backpedal from his statement that Glenn Beck was "right" to call President Obama a racist. The folks at Color of Change, who have worked so hard to hold Beck accountable for his awful accusation, are now asking that we demand the same of Murdoch. It's time for him to have a public conversation about race baiting on Fox. Color of Change has launched a petition demanding that either Murdoch stand by his support for Beck or tell us why not and what he's going to do about it. I urge you to sign it.

John Stossel and the Overblown Headline

Guest blogged by Dan

Fox Business' newest Pundit, John Stossel certainly goes in for the overblown headline: Recyclers as Suckers. Recycles as suckers? What is your reaction? Shock? Awe? Outrage? The story is significantly less impressive.

]]> Stossel quotes an article from the Washington City Paper.

"(W)orkers throw stuff from green containers, black containers, and blue containers in the same truck,... While we also observed trucks properly handling the two forms of refuse, the more time we spent on the road, the more violations we witnessed."

First, some math 101: 1% of 100 is 1. 1%of 10,000 is 100. The more times you watch a recycling truck make its' rounds, the more likely you are to see recycling mishandled. But even so, at least in my neighborhood, there is one recycling truck. All the stuff goes into that truck. Paper in the rear, plastics and glass in the side bins. Is Stossel really suggesting that there should be separate trucks to collect paper, glass, and plastics?

"The New York Post found a similar practice in New York City:

Not only are routine recyclables like bottles, cans and paper being sent to landfills, but so is other waste that is supposed to be trashed separately, such as animal carcasses, medical waste and bins of used kitchen oil...

In that case it was city government staff that was comingling the garbage."

So it's a matter of the material being comingled originally? Is Stossel suggesting that the guys collecting the recycling are supposed to sort it if the consumers haven't?

"Of course, if you read Al Gore's website (a sacrifice I make so you don't have to), it's the people throwing out the garbage who are at fault. They're lazy."

Stossel reads Al Gore's web site so we don't have to! What a nifty slogan. But to the issue, the question, once again, is, whose job is it to sort the recycling? Quoting Former VP Gore, then Stossel's take,

"People are lazy by nature, if you make recycling hard then people will NOT do it. If a recycling bin is right next to a garbage bin any person will recycle, that is unless that person lacks all morals."
"We're lucky to have eco-blowhards like Gore as morality police."

Now, I'm having trouble trying to figure how you get "morality police" of Mr. Gore's quote. I also am having trouble believing that the same people who brought you the "War on Christmas" would talk about "morality police" in the first place. But I fully understand that Stossel would descend to name calling in an attempt to discredit the former VP.

What I don't see is that those of us who try to recycle are "suckers".

Jimmy Kimmel Reports On Hannity's Interview With Carrie Prejean

This needs no further introduction except to say that Sean is indeed very patriotic. Enjoy!

]]>

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Really Think Obama's A Racist

Ruh-roh, it looks like Fox News is trying to do some damage control for Rupert Murdoch. In a recent interview, Murdoch said he agreed with Glenn Beck that President Obama is a racist. Now Fox News is trying to say otherwise. From Politico's Michael Calderone: "News Corp. spokesperson Gary Ginsberg tells POLITICO that Murdoch did not intend to suggest that he had the same opinion as Beck." The only problem? Whatever Murdoch intended to say, what he actually said was that Beck was "right" when he called Obama a racist. And he said it on video.

]]> Calderone reported,

“He (Murdoch) does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist,” Ginsberg said.

Murdoch, in the interview, said that the president "did make a very racist comment" and seemed to indicate he thought Beck was right in making the controversial claim. Media Matters, and others, quickly seized upon the interview as evidence that Murdoch shared the same view as the Fox News host.

Ginsberg said that's not the case, but did not comment further on the interview.

(h/t Media Matters)

So let me see if I've got Fox News' position straight. The "fair and balanced" network thought it A-OK for Beck to call Obama a racist but when Murdoch agreed, they said he didn't mean it.

Fox Opinion News Get Caught Using Wrong Footage - Whoopsie!

Fox Opinion News, as America's Tea Party news room, seemed to be on board with the teabagger mythology that hundreds of thousands of proud pitchforkers attended the 9-12 march in September. And it also seems that they have no problem with the latest iteration of the mythology which claims that Saturday's astro turfed insane clown posse gathering on the steps of the Capitol brought in 20,000 to 40,000 teabaggers when the actual number seems to be smaller. So it was no suprise that Fox fave and conspiratorialist Congresswomen Michele Bachmann promoted the propaganda while being interviewed on Fox Opinion News. Problem was that the film footage, which purportedly showed vast hordes of pissed off populists, was taken at the September rally which drew far greater numbers than Saturday's party. But who cares about such silly details when you've got propaganda to peddle?! Jon Stewart explains it all.

Update: Media Matters has a piece on Fox's "use" of audio and video. In their summary, they forgot to mention the Planned Parenthood in the crosshairs graphic used during a Laura Ingraham segment.

]]> The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cSean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Steve Doocy “Still Standing” With Persecuted Carrie Prejean – A Champion Of “Free Speech”

Fox&Friends does love persecuted Christians and despite her loss of the Miss California crown, Carrie Prejean is still the queen of them all. Carrie is making a career out of victimization; but it’s not just the slings and arrows of the librul/gay agenda that poor Carrie has been suffering, as she was dropped from an event sponsored by her fellow defenders of “opposite marriage,” “Defenders of the Family.” But not to worry – Sean Hannity enveloped her in warm, fuzzy Christian fellowship and now Steve Doocy has provided her with a pulpit from which to preach her gospel of persecution and promote her book. And the matter of her having been spurned by fellow crusaders – it was only mentioned in a chyron. Fellow Christian Steve Doocy didn’t mention it as the intent was to show that poor, persecuted Carrie Prejean, as a champion of “free speech,” is a true “profile in courage.”

]]> Doocy began yesterday’s interview with an affirmation of a right wing talking point (evil libruls/gays) and the meme of poor, persecuted Carrie: “When Carrie Prejean took a stand for traditional marriage she could hardly have predicted the firestorm that would follow. She lost her Miss California crown and endured endless attacks from pageant officials and the media many who sought to destroy her because she didn’t agree with their agenda.” He read the title of her book, “Still Standing, The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate, and Political Attacks," (love that victimhood!) and added “Carrie you’ve certainly had a whole bunch of that.” Doocy spoke about the tape. She affirmed that it existed and then went into victim mode: “there has been a campaign to silence me, people who were furious at my answer. Stop me from spreading my message.” (And who might they be?) She explained that this is why she wrote the book “which is important for Americans to give them hope and let then know their beliefs shouldn’t be under attack.” (What an incredible role model!) Victimhood (with a dash of paranoia) was repeated when she said, again, that her beliefs were under attack and that she was punished and “they tried to silence me.” (Who’s “they?”) The chyron read “Beauty Queen’s Backlash, Dropped From Conservative Event. Pageant footage of Carrie presenting herself in that virginal white bikini was shown. When she said that she was told not to discuss what happened during mediation because of confidentiality, Doocy, obviously not familiar with the law, asked “isn’t that blackmail?” She said that you could call it whatever you wanted but there’s been a campaign of people who are furious and they’ve called every one of my ex boyfriends “ The chyron reinforced the victimization: “After Losing Crown, How Pageant Tactics Cost Prejean the Crown.” Regarding the Christian softcore, she admitted that she takes “full responsibility for her actions, she was young, and that it’s awkward to be talking about this.” Doocy “interpreted” (a Fox&Friends technique, a variant of the “reach around” which is a summation of the interviewee’s position and which allows the guest to reiterate the message once again) about her interchange with Perez Hilton – “you knew that if you told the truth, in your heart, that you would loose the crown." She provided the pre programmed response: “right, exactly.” She said that had to be honest and she knew that it would cost the crown. Chyron – A “PC” Society, Prejean Fights For Free Speech." Doocy said “you could have given another answer” and she agreed. Doocy asked “if you had it do all over all again, you’ve been called a Nazi and much worse.” (So Steve, are you as outraged about the Obama as Nazi comments and visuals from your fellow travelers?) He asked if she would do it all again. And, of course, she would. As the chyron, in reinforcing Carrie’s bravery under such adversity read “Carrie’s Courage, Prejean Stuck to her Convictions” she reiterated about how “it’s all a campaign to silence me.”

Comment: The only thing lacking from this puff piece was a chorus of “Onward Christian Soldiers.” But it did serve to remind us that Carrie is the victim of that evil “PC” society, ruled by evil libruls and gays, which is constantly attacking the sweetest example of young Christian womanhood ever to grace the set of Fox&Friends. Steve Doocy, who was “standing” for Carrie (in probably all senses of the word – wink, wink) didn’t mention the affront that she suffered from her fellow family values pals. He didn’t ask for details about the lawsuit which was based on the Miss California pageant’s claims that Carrie was spending too much time being a family values spokesmodel. And there was the matter of the fake mammaries. Neither Doocy nor persecuted Prejean mentioned that the “pageant will pay about $100,000 to her lawyers and publicist, a fraction of her costs.” But that wouldn’t fit the message of the day which is that Carrie Prejean is a righteous role model for the religious right. I wonder if a pro gay rights beauty queen, who lost a title because of a teen skin video on her resume, would be granted the same kind of deference on Fox Opinion News. Hmmm….

O'Reilly Needs Google for Dummies -- Or Maybe He'd Rather Just Lie About the California Tax Increase

On 11/4/09, in Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo, he had all sorts of advice for President Obama, beginning with the sage advice that President Obama should hire him, O’Reilly, as his personal advisor. Now, after bragging that the Factor is a “no gloat zone” – see how I said that with a straight face? -- O’Reilly gloated about the “Republican victories” in Virginia and New Jersey but made sure to state that he was frowning on the Republican gloaters. The “victories” in Virginia and New Jersey, in the No-Gloater’s opinion, were an indication that “many Americans believe President Obama’s policies are simply not working.” O’Reilly believes that he would bring a “common sense perspective” to the Oval Office: “There would be no gloating there, no nutty idealogy, no attacks on Fox News.” No nutty idealogy – does he think we’ve forgotten his mission against abortion doctor, George Tiller, and, subsequently, Tiller’s murder? With video.

]]> Wow, this is . . . I’m speechless. I waited for O’Reilly to finish gloating some more about the fact that Obamacare will “create more problems than it will solve” [this was, by the way, prior to the House passing the healthcare reform bill last weekend] and how “voters in Virginia and New Jersey knew it.” I waited out his gloat about the economy being shaky, how raising taxes is a big no-no and how “voters yesterday went for the candidates who offered lower taxes.” I waited for O’Reilly to finish his rant about how President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan – under threat of O’Reilly throwing a tantrum in the White House. I waited for all this gloating to end so I could hear some more about the “no gloat zone.”

But – and H/T to reader Scott from Toronto, who noted O’Reilly’s lies on this point – I instead heard O’Reilly slam California for allegedly withholding an additional 10% -- a “tax surcharge” -- from everyone’s paycheck.

“They’re gangsters out there in Sacramento,” O’Reilly cried indignantly. “They just come in and whack every working person with a 10% tax surcharge. Yeah, people might get it back after they file in April . . . the liberal legislature in California has destroyed the state economically and now they’re stealing money from the folks to cover their horrendous mistakes . . . already Nancy Pelosi and her far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45% . . . that’s Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages that people honestly earn.”

Except . . . it ain’t so. Yes, the State of California did increase the amount of state income tax withheld from paychecks by 10%. But no, it isn’t really a tax increase. It certainly isn’t a “tax surcharge.” It isn’t “stealing money from the folks.” It isn’t “confiscating wages that people honestly earn.” Oh, and it isn’t “Fidel Castro stuff.” Essentially, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, it’s a “cash advance,” a loan, to the State by wage earners that “gives the state some wiggle room in managing California's treasury in a year that saw a titanic political battle to get a handle on the state's budget.” What O’Reilly failed to note is that, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, wage earners can actually avoid this additional withholding by changing their withholding allowances with their employers.

According to the Sacramento Bee, “Essentially, the accelerated withholding program does not generate additional tax revenue. Instead, it front-loads it, bringing cash in more quickly in an effort to keep the state treasury stocked with funds, which is where the ‘cash advance’ tag comes in . . . State officials have estimated that the move will generate an additional $1.7 billion in the current fiscal year . . . The bottom line is that a worker's total annual income tax bill won't rise, and the amount owed at April 2010 tax time will be adjusted accordingly.” (Emphasis mine) A little Googling by O’Reilly or his esteemed staff would have show that the actual increase in state income tax is 0.25%. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times noted, “from a single taxpayer earning $51,000 a year with no dependents, the state will be grabbing an extra $17.59 each month, according to state tax officials. A married person earning $90,000 with two dependents would receive $24.87 less in monthly pay.” In real-life terms, that’s, like, one super-dooper, extra fancy, gourmet cup of Starbucks a week – half a cup if you’re single.

So, after this segment, you’d think O’Reilly and his staff would maybe do a little surfing of the net, figure out the truth, maybe even set the record straight, right? Nooooooo . . . O’Reilly continued to perpetuate the lie on 11/9/09 in the Miller Time segment (see video below), stating that “10% of their take-home pay disappears because pinheads can’t manage the money, give it away, are corrupt, don’t watch it . . . ,” while failing to note that these people will get this money back in April when they file their federal income tax returns and that they can actually change their withholding allowance to avoid this increase.

Let’s summarize. The “no gloating” and “common sense” O’Reilly brings to The Factor, and would ostensibly bring to the White House, consists of scaring people silly about a worker tax bump that amounts to the loss of about one Starbucks coffee a week. The “no gloating” and “common sense” approach consists of lying like a dog about the State of California “stealing” from its workers. The “no gloating” and “common sense” approach means failing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the fact that these workers will get their one-Starbucks-a-week money back from the Feds at tax time.

As Eminem said to Mariah Carey in his rap diss, “Warning Shot,” I now say to O’Reilly” “. . . So don’t go opening your jibs cos every time you do it’s just another load of fibs . . . .”

Subbing For Glenn Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano Stops One Step Short Of Advocating Insurrection

OK, so he was missing the chalkboard, the props and a certain je ne sais quoi pas but Judge Andrew Napolitano's incendiary rabble-rousing on Glenn Beck must surely have warmed the heart (assuming he has one) of the absent host. With some brief, pointed words, Napolitano advocated a series of radical actions such as demanding that state legislatures defy the federal government with regard to health care reform and abolish the income tax. With video.

]]> Napolitano gave a concise version of Beck’s editorializing segment that opens every one of his shows. What Beck does in 15 minutes or so of histrionics and theatrics, Napolitano accomplished in a tidy 2 and a half. He started by railing against the health care bill approved by the House of Representatives over the weekend. “Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. More of your hard earned-dollars will be at the disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats. It was not intended to be this way. We elected the government… How did it get so removed, so arrogant? …Evil rarely comes upon us all at once and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave-in there. Powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live.”

Napolitano told us that he’ll be giving “a public lecture” on Constitutional law on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com and on Fox nation. Judging from this little foretaste, it promises to be quite a conflagration. “Many of you have asked what can we do now about the loss of freedom?” Napolitano continued. Then he set upon a litany of suggestions that made me more than a little queasy: “We can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices, we can persuade the state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care where the Constitution gives the federal government zero authority. We can ask our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, to return the selection of US senators to state legislatures and to nullify, to nullify! all the laws that Congress has written that are not based on the constitution. But there is one thing we can't do. Just sit back and take it.”

Rupert Murdoch Agrees With Glenn Beck That Obama Is A Racist

Think Progress reports that in an interview with Sky News Australia last week, Rupert Murdoch not only defended Glenn Beck's outrageous comments calling President Obama a "racist," with a "deep-seated hatred for white people," Murdoch said Beck was "right." Now we know why Beck was not fired: The sentiments go all the way to the top. Think Progress also notes that Murdoch must not be very familiar with what goes on at the "fair and balanced" network as he falsely claims that "not one of our people" likened Obama to Stalin. Video after the jump - the exchange begins at about 16:00.

]]>

Carrie Prejean’s Sex Tape – What Say You Bill O’Reilly?

Sean Hannity,as Ellen reported, provided affirmation and validation for former Miss California and spokesmodel for the National Organization for Marriage, Carrie Prejean, whose book Hannity has provided the forward for. It seems that there’s this issue of Carrie’s youthful indiscretion involving a sex tape which she made as a gift to her boyfriend – a nice, Christian, and (most importantly) heterosexual video portrayal of a young Christian girl feeling the love of Jesus. However, as she told Sean, it was a youthful indiscretion which she regrets so it’s all good. But now that she has appeared on Hannity’s show, will she make the rounds of Fox Opinion News? Will she speak with Bill O’Reilly (who also knows the joys of self satisfaction!)? Will Ms. Prejean be a topic for the Culture Warriors? Gretchen Carlson is a former Miss America who could provide some discourse on how virtuous Prejean has been in fighting teh gay and promoting family values while Bill plays the video of Prejean, strutting around in her very Christian white (signifying purity) bikini and her silicone appendages. (Praise the Lord for modern technology!) I do wonder about O’Reilly’s take on the sex tape because it wasn’t that long ago that Bill was doing his “wag of the finger” about teens doing “sexting.”

]]> “Sexting” is a practice whereby people send cyberspace pictures of themselves, doing sexy things, to others. A number of teens have been charged with child pornography as a result of their having sent done this. Bill tackled the topic in one of his articles: “The Birds, the Bees, and the Cell Phones.” He said: “children are under pressure from high-tech machines that can instantly provide them with images and information far beyond their ability to emotionally comprehend the material.” He went on about public apathy which he then linked to NAMBLA. He blamed “the left” for bringing down family values. He asserted that “sexting will not do any child any good. Children should be taught that America has become the most powerful country in history by embracing a Judeo-Christian philosophy based upon good works, noble intentions and personal discipline. None of that is found in exposing yourself.” Obviously, Carrie didn’t espouse that world view! What say you Bill O’Reilly?

"I don't want anybody else
When I think about you
I touch myself
I don't want anybody else
Oh no, oh no, oh no"

Here We Go! Fox News Blaming Obama For “Terror Attack” At Fort Hood

The investigation into the Fort Hood shootings has just begun but the folks at Fox News have already concluded ahead of the investigators that it was a terrorist attack and President Obama is to blame. Mark my words, here comes the meme: President Bush kept us safe, President Obama allowed a terror attack to occur. And they'll probably wrap it all up in an anti-Muslim package. You can certainly see the drumbeat beginning.

]]> Sean Hannity raised the point several times on Monday night’s (11/9/09) Hannity. First, he asked Dick Morris (at about the 1:46 mark in the video below), “There are reports now, for some period of our time, that our government knew that (alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan) was trying to contact Al Qaeda. The question then is, why wouldn’t they have removed him from this position?” Notice Hannity’s use of the word “government,” instead of “military.” He was already laying his assault plan.

Morris answered, “We’re going to see that it’s because we’ve tied the hands of the intelligence community, that they’re so worried about stripping somebody of his civil rights, or being accused of falsely accusing somebody and being racially insensitive...”

Hannity deliberately moved to focus Morris against Obama. “So you’re saying political correctness could have kept colleagues and our own government (my emphasis) from stopping somebody that they knew was dangerous…”

Morris took the bait. “Precisely. And I also think that the hoops that Obama has been jumping through to avoid you calling this terrorism…. It makes it the first domestic attack on American soil since 9/11.”

Hannity, feigning frustration but obviously satisfied, asked, “Why won’t anybody say what you just said and I’ve said?”

Morris really got with the program now. “This is the first attack since 9/11 and it’s the consequence of the unilateral disarmament that Barack Obama has brought to the intelligence community… He’s done everything he can to put out (Hasan’s) psychological history, his grumbling… all that so he doesn’t have to answer for a terrorist attack.”

Hannity repeated the maneuver during the “Great American Panel” segment when he accused, “There is a chance our government knew all about this guy Hasan because nobody wanted to be called an ‘Islamophobe.’… Our government apparently knew and did nothing… What does that say about our government and Barack Obama?”

Similarly, as Michelle Malkin frothed at the mouth over political correctness being to blame for the shootings, Eric Bolling, substituting for Glenn Beck, did not challenge any of her assertions, did not even suggest that they might be premature given that the investigation is still so incomplete. In fact, he stated that with 13 people dead, that meant terrorism to him. Bolling later made a deliberate effort to make sure Malkin included Obama in her rant. Bolling said, “The President, the day it happened last Thursday… some people are upset with him… Is he doing enough?” Sure enough, Malkin took the hint and wasted no time launching a slew of self-righteousness superciliousness, combined with anti-Muslim hostility, aimed at Obama for his “Pre-9/11 attitude of putting diversity uber alles.” Bolling sounded very pleased as he closed the interview.

Foxnews.com and Fox Nation headlines repeat these themes:

Officials Deny Sitting on Intel
Imam Urges Others To Follow In Suspect’s Footsteps
FOX Forum: Obama Ignores Terror Threat
MICHEL GOODWIN: The White House Won’t Say It But What Happened at Ft. Hood Was A Terrorist Act.
Obama Ignores Terror Threat At His Own Peril
Congressman: Obama “Refusing To Release” Info on Ft. Hood Attack

The "cover up" story was also featured on Special Report (video below).

“Family Values” Champ Carrie Prejean Admits To Making Sex Tape As A Teenager

Let me be perfectly clear. Carrie Prejean’s position on gay marriage is a non-issue to me. It’s not my position but I can understand someone feeling that way. Nor do I care if that same person poses for topless photos or makes a sex tape. But if that same person holds herself up as some kind of champion of family values and personal conservatism, well, it’s an issue. And it’s an even bigger issue if that same person has already made some very questionable excuses when a series of topless photos of herself had previously surfaced. But not surprisingly, none of those issues seemed to occur to Sean Hannity as he interviewed Prejean Monday night (11/9/09). In fact, he was so sympathetic, he helped her explain away the blatant hypocrisy – about the sex tape, that is. He seemed to have developed a case of amnesia about the topless photos. Meanwhile, as Prejean repeatedly called the tape a mistake, made when she was a teenager, she never once said anything about the behavior being a mistake. Instead, as Prejean bragged about how she took “total responsibility” for the video, she seemed to take no responsibility for having engaged in such lewd behavior with a man not her husband - and as a teenager no less. In fact, Hannity praised her for giving advice to young girls in her newly released book. With video (of the Fox News interview, not the sex tape).

]]> As Hannity’s former television partner, Alan Colmes, has written on his blog, Prejean claimed last spring that a photographer sneakily took a racy photo of her in betweeen poses at a photo shoot, just at the moment when a gust of wind blew her way (never mind that the photo looks very posed and that Prejean just happened to be standing around wearing nothing but an unbuttoned vest and a bikini bottom). After vowing that just one photo was taken, more surfaced. But that didn’t stop Prejean from showing up at the Values Voters Summit and bragging about sticking up for God and the truth.

About a week ago, as I previously posted, TMZ reported that Prejean immediately walked away from her demands for more than a million dollars from the Miss California USA Pageant once she saw "an XXX home video of her handiwork." TMZ said it had obtained the video months before but had decided not to post it due to its extremely graphic nature. "Let's just say, Carrie has a promising solo career," the site quipped.

Inconveniently for Prejean, this revelation came about just as she published a new book which touts her as “a strong woman of admirable religious, political, and moral substance.” Hannity announced that he was proud to have written the foreword.

“We might as well go right to it,” Hannity said at the beginning of his interview with Prejean. “TMZ, the website, has up there that they have obtained a… Carrie Prejean sex tape. What’s going on?”

Prejean repeatedly suggested that it wasn't really a sex tape because she was alone. "Well, they can call it whatever they want to call it,” Prejean said. “But, it was the biggest mistake of my life. I was all by myself. I was sending a boyfriend at the time, who I loved and cared about… video of me and… I was a teenager at the time… It was bad judgment… It’s embarrassing and it’s humiliating to be talking about this now on national TV.”

Wait a minute, wasn’t it immoral? Isn’t this exactly the kind of behavior Family Values Folk rail against? Maybe not.

Prejean admitted that it bothered her, though she didn’t say why. “But you know what? You just take responsibility for it and I am. I’m taking total responsibility for it.” Well, I guess that’s better than the way she tried to shirk responsibility for the topless photos. But having said that, Prejean began to sound like she was justifying her behavior. “I was, you know, alone, sending it to my boyfriend who I cared about and loved about (sic) at the time. When you’re young, you think… this is the one and… never did I think it would come and slap me right in the face.” Hmm, I’m not hearing a lot of remorse for that lewd behavior from a youngster.

“This is not a sex tape,” Hannity said. “When we hear the word ‘sex tape,’ this is not anything like some of the ones we’ve heard about… You were sending video of yourself to your boyfriend.” Yeah, triple x video that TMZ found too graphic to publish.

“I was all by myself and… no one was in the room with me… I was not having sex with anybody… Call it whatever you want to call it,” Ms. "I take full responsibility" said.

I think we get the picture.

“It’s a pretty big betrayal,” Hannity said, referring to the boyfriend who sold the video, rather than Prejean’s very un-Values-Voters-like behavior.

“I’ve learned a lot,” Prejean said, not about her behavior but “about people and just what they’ll do to make some extra money.”

Prejean reiterated that it was “the worst mistake of my life." Then she added that she’s “ready to just move forward.”

That’s one statement from her I don’t doubt.

Chickenhawk Brian Kilmeade Won’t Share His Foxhole With A Muslim?

“Chickenhawk" is a word “used to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age." Fox Opinion News commentator Brian Kilmeade was born in 1964 and that means that he could have served in both conflicts in Iraq. Whether he actively chose not to serve or had, like the former vice-president, "other priorities," who knows. What we do know is that he chose to do other things which included, during the Bush II war of choice, being part of a “news” team which actively cheered the war from the first moment of “shock and awe” (Brian and his chums loved those “fireworks”). So it was interesting to note Kilmeade’s question, during a fairly reasoned discussion (thank you Geraldo for presenting the “minority” position”), about whether it’s “time for the military to have special de-briefings of Muslim army, civilian, officers…I’m gonna be deployed in a foxhole…I gotta know the guy next to me is not gonna want to kill me.” (Hmmm, was Brian asking for de-briefings of white, Christian soldiers with white supremacist connections, after the Oklahoma city bombing?) But really, seriously, Brian Kilmeade in a foxhole – as if!!! I suppose that Fox&Friends is a “Fox”hole – but being that he’s with soulmates, I guess he’s safe.

]]>