National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent weighed in on the Texas governor's race in his column for conspiracy website WND, attacking the "America-hating" campaign of Democratic candidate Wendy Davis.
In his October 29 column, Nugent wrote, "Thank God there are still way more Texans that stand in defiance of the lying, scamming, America-hating, Texas-hating scammers and scoundrels that infest and steer the Wendy Davis campaign of deception."
In February, Nugent set off a lengthy controversy when he appeared at a campaign event with Republican candidate Greg Abbott and called him his "blood brother." Abbott was criticized for appearing with Nugent after the NRA figure had recently called President Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and because of Nugent's history of demeaning attacks on women.
Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham questioned the authenticity of the health care professionals flanking the president during a press conference on Ebola, suggesting that some may have been political props in "white coats."
On October 29, President Obama addressed the United States' on-going response to Ebola outbreaks in West Africa joined by several health care workers recently returned from relief operations overseas as well as others soon to depart for the region. Among the guests was Dr. Kent Brantly, who became infected while volunteering in Liberia and was the first Ebola patient treated on American soil. The president addressed the urgent need to "stop the outbreak at its source," and thanked the "extraordinary American health workers who are on the front lines of the fight."
Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham criticized Obama's appearance with the relief workers on the October 30 edition of her radio show, and questioned whether or not some were employees of the pro-Obama political group Organizing for America disguised in "white coats":
INGRAHAM: [Obama] was flanked by volunteers who have gone to West Africa to help the victims of Ebola. Are we positive that it was all volunteers, Julia? Could it have been some of the folks from Organizing for America just in the white coats?
Listen to the full segment here:
Discredited former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson appeared on an "endtimes newscast" and entertained the host's suggestion that the United States may soon see "a trigger event" that "justifies a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship where no dissent, no questions are asked." In response to whether such a dictatorship could happen, Attkisson replied: "Gosh, it's hard to say. I just think right now the trend is bad."
Attkisson, author of the upcoming book Stonewalled, was a recent guest on the radio program Trunews. The show describes itself as an "Endtimes Newscast" and "the only nightly newscast reporting the countdown to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."
Host Rick Wiles, as documented by Right Wing Watch, regularly peddles bizarre and outlandish conspiracies. Wiles has labeled Obama the "Antichrist" and a "stealth jihadist" and called on the military and God to save us from his "tyranny"; claimed "Ebola could solve America's problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion"; warned that Christians in America could soon be "arrested or possibly killed"; and said "Satan launched a D-Day invasion of the United States of America in 2012."
On his October 24 program, Wiles asked Attkisson to predict where things are headed in the United States and if the country might become a "full-blown totalitarian dictatorship":
On the second anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, Fox News promoted a plan called the "Hurricane Slayer," which works to cool ocean temperatures through geoengineering, without mentioning climate change or the role it played in exacerbating the devastating storm.
In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy made landfall on the Atlantic seaboard bringing catastrophic damage and massive flooding exacerbated by rising sea levels due to global-warming. As global ocean temperatures continue to rise from man-made global warming, hurricanes are expected to become even more intense.
Fox made no mention of climate change or sea level rise during a segment on how to "lessen the impact of storms like Sandy" on the October 29 edition of Happening Now. Instead, Fox correspondent Doug Kennedy interviewed scientist Alan Blumberg about his plan to lower the intensity of future storms called the "Hurricane Slayer." Blumberg explained that his plan would use "tubular pumps" to bring cold water from deep in the ocean to cool the surface water and lessen the difference between ocean temperature and air temperature, which he explained is "key in lessening a [hurricane] wind's wrath":
In its most recent effort to defend discriminatory and unnecessary strict voter ID laws, National Review Online has resorted in the past week to recycling debunked myths about this type of voter suppression, most recently linking voter ID to noncitizen voting, which is an unrelated issue.
With the midterm elections coming up, right-wing media are aggressively lying about voter ID laws and voter fraud, and NRO is no exception. NRO has previously praised Texas' strict voter ID law -- which has been found to be racially discriminatory in both intent and effect -- called for the remaining protections available under the Voting Rights Act to be repealed or limited, and dismissed concerns over Wisconsin's voter ID law, which has the potential to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters when it goes into effect.
In just the past week, NRO writers have doubled down on nearly all of these poorly supported right-wing positions. National Review editor Rich Lowry defended Texas's strict voter ID law -- which a federal judge determined to be an "unconstitutional poll tax" -- by arguing that the disenfranchisement these laws cause is justified by the potential for in-person voter impersonation, even though that kind of fraud is virtually non-existent. Lowry also incorrectly claimed that strict voter ID laws require the same level of identification needed to buy a gun. NRO contributor Hans von Spakovsky wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "moves to shore up election integrity have been resisted by progressives" who are challenging the legality of voter ID laws "without evidence that such efforts suppress minority turnout" -- despite the fact that a recent report found a decrease in voter of color turnout in two states was attributable to strict voter ID. For good measure, von Spakovsky, a discredited proponent of restrictive election rules, also conflated other forms of voter fraud with in-person impersonation, the only type of fraud voter ID prevents.
The dissembling continued with another NRO contributor, Mona Charen, offering more of the same in a post titled "The Voter-ID Myth Crashes." Charen seized on a contested study of the rate of noncitizen voting to claim that "[b]eing asked to show a photo ID can diminish several kinds of fraud, including impersonation, duplicate registrations in different jurisdictions, and voting by ineligible people including felons and noncitizens," but buried the fact that "[v]oter-ID laws will not prevent noncitizens from voting."
The lead investigator in the Department of Homeland Security's 2012 review of the Secret Service prostitution scandal -- which was sensationalized by conservative media -- has reportedly resigned after being accused of soliciting a prostitute himself.
According to recent reports, David Nieland resigned from DHS in August after refusing to answer questions about whether he solicited a prostitute in Florida. His 2012 inquiry into how the Secret Service handled the prostitution scandal that resulted in the firing of eight agents was the source of right-wing media claims of a political cover-up, as Nieland told Congress that he felt pressure from superiors to delay his investigative report until after the 2012 election and to "withhold and alter certain information." According to the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee's subsequent review of the investigation process, however, there was "no evidence to substantiate" Nieland's allegations.
Still, The Washington Post cited Nieland's unverified claims for its controversial October 8 story on the investigation, which relied heavily on an anonymous source to implicate then-White House volunteer and Yale law student Jonathan Dach in the prostitution activity. The Post printed his name despite the fact that the White House cleared him of wrongdoing in 2012 (Notably, the Post's recent coverage of Nieland's resignation does not use Dach's name, instead simply explaining that Nieland had mentioned a White House "volunteer").
The paper was roundly criticized for its decision to print the White House volunteer's name -- as Huffington Post senior media reporter Michael Calderone pointed out, the Post's story relied on uncorroborated claims from a single anonymous "eyewitness" who said "he saw Dach with a woman he believed was a prostitute," but failed to mention any attempts to confirm the anonymous woman's existence or identity. Calderone slammed the paper for "craft[ing] its story in a way that could give the impression of guilt or impropriety":
So why then did the Post decide to name him now, two and a half years after it broke the news of the scandal and 9 months since reporters began communicating with his attorney? Letters obtained by The Huffington Post show the attorney, Richard Sauber, rebutted the claims and offered countervailing evidence in letters sent to top Post editors. The decision to publish Dach's identity regardless raises questions about the threshold news organizations must meet when revealing the name of someone accused of lurid activity without independently confirming the claims.
Though The Post did not conclude that Dach hired a prostitute, it nevertheless crafted its story in a way that could give the impression of guilt or impropriety. ... Sauber denied the allegations and expressed concern that the inclusion of Dach's name in a story on the prostitution scandal could significantly damage his professional future. Sauber wrote on Jan. 16that the publication of the charge "will be devastating to this young man just as he embarks on his career after law school."
Fox News proved that love is blind in its latest interview with former Fox employee and current Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown.
With less than a week before the 2014 midterm elections, Brown was welcomed on the set of Fox & Friends with no disclosure of his prior affiliation with the network. Instead, hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade praised Brown for "doing really well" in the polls and getting "within two points" of Shaheen. Kilmeade added: "I think both sides are saying you're one of the finest politicians they've seen because you like people."
Fox's softball questions didn't attempt to delve into Brown's platform, instead echoing Brown's own attacks on Shaheen's voting record. Doocy mistakenly congratulated Brown, who was elected Massachusetts Senator during Obama's presidency in 2010, for having an independent record under the Bush administration and claimed that, unlike Brown, Shaheen has served as a "rubber stamp" for her party's policies:
DOOCY: You just touched on something. When you were in the U.S. Senate you were not a rubber stamp, an automatic rubber stamp for George Bush's policies. However, you've been very effective in this particular senate race. Jean Shaheen has been a rubber stamp for President Obama.
BROWN: I was there with President Obama, not with President Bush, but that is correct, I was the most independent senator in the United States Senate. Senator Shaheen is the most partisan. So, we need to change direction.
Doocy failed to mention that his line about Shaheen being a "rubber stamp for President Obama" comes directly from the Brown campaign. During an October 6 debate Brown said, "You will have a clear choice, someone who is rubber stamping for the president's policies or someone who will be independent on the issues." Brown's "rubber stamp" attack has also been echoed by the Republican National Committee on Brown's behalf.
Fox has a long history of working to boost the electoral prospects of its former employees and has given Brown a particularly cozy platform to promote his campaigns. While Brown was still employed at Fox, its hosts repeatedly asked him whether he planned to run again, calling it a "terrific" idea. Brown has also said that his time at Fox "really charged me up to" run. Since his primary victory in New Hampshire, the network has repeatedly offered him free airtime to attack Shaheen.
Sharyl Attkisson's new book shows the common interest between a discredited journalist trying to cash in on right-wing credibility and the conservative machine that wants its media worldview confirmed.
Attkisson resigned in March after two decades at CBS News, reportedly in part because she believed the network had stymied her reporting due to "liberal bias." Staffers there reportedly characterized her work, which often focused on trumped-up claims of Obama administration misdeeds, as "agenda-driven," leading "network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting."
In her forthcoming book, Stonewalled, Attkisson alleges that the press has been protecting Obama from scrutiny for ideological reasons. "Attkisson doesn't explicitly accuse CBS and the rest of the mainstream media of a pervasive liberal bias," writes Fox News' Howard Kurtz in a review. "But that view is clear from sheer accumulation of detail in her book."
Based on press accounts, Attkisson's allegations of CBS News' bias rely largely on her own recollections of conversations she says she had with her former colleagues. The network declined Media Matters' request for comment, but one apparent subject of Attkisson's criticism has denied her account.
Attkisson's credibility is central to determining whether to believe her claims. Given her history of conspiratorial claims and shoddy reporting -- including her false and baseless claim that Media Matters may have been paid to attack her -- it is difficult to take her story at face value. But one thing is clear: her message is very valuable to both right-wing media and Attkisson herself.
A new report that ranked the United States 65th in the world on gender pay equality discredits Fox News' continuing campaign to dismiss the gender pay gap.
According to a recently released report by the World Economic Forum examining gender equality across the world, the United States ranks 65th in their survey of 142 countries and earns a wage equality score of only 66 percent -- meaning women earn only two-thirds of what men earn for similar work. The report, which drew from nine years of data, found that there has been "only a small improvement in equality for women in the workplace" since they began surveying the issue, and predicted that women won't see full gender equality in the workplace until at least the year 2095.
Despite the persistence of pay inequality in the United States, Fox News has continuously rejected the gender wage gap as a myth and a "meme," denied its existence entirely, and falsely attempted to attribute the gap to women's personal choices and "emotional difference[s]."
Just weeks ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, the network has even downplayed pay inequality as an issue not important enough to "drive voters to the polls," but polling data shows the issue matters to women. A September poll from Gallup found that "nearly four in 10 Americans say equal pay is the top issue facing working women in the United States today." That number was even higher for working women themselves, a majority of whom cited it as the most important issue they faced.
Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow wrote that "it's time for an American jihad" to, forcibly if need be, convert every nation's government into a reflection of the U.S. government.
In an October 28 FoxNews.com op-ed, Ablow wrote that America's history "proves our manifest destiny not only to preserve our borders and safety and national character at home, but to spread around the world our love of individual freedom and insist on its reflection in every government." Ablow's "jihad" consisted of a series of extreme and controversial proposals including having retired U.S. lawmakers seek dual citizenship to influence other nations into adopting American laws, intervening militarily around the world, and making "every tax dollar a tithing and the squandering of those dollars a sin":
An American jihad would embrace the correct belief that if every nation on earth were governed by freely elected leaders and by our Constitution, the world would be a far better place. And an American jihad would not only hope for this outcome, but work toward it.
We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations.
We would accept the fact that an American jihad could mean boots on the ground in many places in the world where human rights are being denigrated and horrors are unfolding. Because wherever leaders and movements appear that seek to trample upon the human spirit, we have a God-given right to intervene -- because we have been to the mountaintop of freedom, and we have seen the Promised Land spanning the globe.
An American jihad would make every tax dollar a tithing and the squandering of those dollars a sin. An American jihad would make every hour spent working in an American company -- or founding one -- an offering. An American jihad would make every teacher of American history not only a public servant, but a servant of the Truth.
We the People of the United States are good and we are right. And we need the spirit of an American jihad to properly invite, intensify and focus our intentions to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution here at home, and to seek to spread its principles abroad.
Ablow is no stranger to extreme and controversial statements. He recently accused President Obama of welcoming Ebola into the U.S. because his "affinities" are with Africa. He later defended this comment, saying the president won't "fully defend" the country because "he has it in" for America.