National Review likened Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to a Nazi.
In a July 20 post on National Review Online, National Review editor Kevin Williamson claimed that Sanders' political views equate to "national socialism," even as Williamson acknowledges Sanders' Jewish heritage and the fact that his family was killed in the Holocaust: (emphasis added)
Aside from Grandma Stalin there, there's not a lot of overtly Soviet iconography on display around the Bernieverse, but the word "socialism" is on a great many lips. Not Bernie's lips, for heaven's sake: The guy's running for president. But Tara Monson, a young mother who has come out to the UAW hall to support her candidate, is pretty straightforward about her issues: "Socialism," she says. "My husband's been trying to get me to move to a socialist country for years -- but now, maybe, we'll get it here." The socialist country she has in mind is Norway, which of course isn't a socialist country at all: It's an oil emirate. Monson is a classic American radical, which is to say, a wounded teenager in an adult's body: Asked what drew her to socialism and Bernie, she says that she is "very atheist," and that her Catholic parents were not accepting of this. She goes on to cite her "social views," and by the time she gets around to the economic questions, she's not Helle Thorning-Schmidt -- she's Pat Buchanan, complaining about "sending our jobs overseas." L'Internationale, my patootie. This is national socialism.
In the Bernieverse, there's a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics.
[...]There are many kinds of Us-and-Them politics, and Bernie Sanders, to be sure, is not a national socialist in the mode of Alfred Rosenberg or Julius Streicher.
He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn't driven by racial hatred; he's driven by political hatred. And that's bad enough.
Image via Marc Nozell via Creative Commons License
National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke defended a provision in federal law that allowed the alleged perpetrator of the Charleston church mass shooting to obtain a firearm without undergoing a completed background check, arguing that Second Amendment rights purportedly protected by the provision outweigh the negative consequences.
On July 10, FBI Director James Comey announced that Dylann Storm Roof, the man accused of killing 9 people inside of Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, was ineligible under federal law to buy the gun used in the attack because of his admission to police officers that he was an illegal drug user.
Due to paperwork errors, however, an employee at the FBI-administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which processes background checks for guns sold by licensed dealers, was unable to view Roof's arrest record, despite knowing that one existed.
Under the current background check system, if a check cannot be completed within three business days it may proceed at the gun dealers discretion in what is known as a "default proceed" sale. According to the FBI, this is how Roof's sale was completed.
This feature of the background check law exists because of efforts by the National Rifle Association to weaken the 1993 Brady background check bill that created the current background check system. The provision appeared in an NRA-backed amendment introduced by Rep. George Gekas (R-PA). The Gekas amendment allowed a "default proceed" to occur after one business day, which was later lengthened to three business days with a compromise amendment in the Senate.
In a July 13 post, Cooke defended this state of affairs, arguing that no change should be made in the "default proceed" provision because on balance it is "a means of protecting the innocent" from government interference with Second Amendment rights where the benefits presumably outweigh any negative consequences (emphasis original):
But it should be acknowledged for the record that the three-day exception was not a drafting error or an oversight, but a provision that was deliberately included within the law as a means of protecting the the [sic] innocent. Just as the police are forbidden from detaining suspects without charge -- and just as one cannot be imprisoned unless prosecutors can prove one's guilt -- the government is not permitted to remove your Second Amendment rights without good reason. If they can't find that reason within three days of your attempting to purchase a firearm, they have to stop trying.
While Cooke wrote that the sale to Roof "seems problematic," he concluded, "As a matter of general principle, however, the legal protections from which he benefited are sound. We would not seek to do away with due process because the guilty are occasionally left free to offend again. We should not diminish the Second Amendment because the state screwed up either."
This argument, however, presents a false choice between protecting due process and Second Amendment rights and ensuring that dangerous people are flagged by the background check system -- and is further evidence of conservative media's rush to dismiss any changes to gun laws following high-profile shootings. (While also indicating a willingness to balance the consequences of gun sales to dangerous people with the fact that some, although very few, eligible purchasers will have to wait to complete their checks.)
While a system that allowed the government to indefinitely delay the completion of background checks without justification would raise constitutional concerns, several states have laws extending the three day requirement to give investigators a reasonable chance to determine if a potential gun purchaser is prohibited from buying a gun.
For example, in Tennessee a dealer must allow authorities 15 days to complete an inconclusive background check. If the check is still not complete after 15 days, a dealer may proceed with the sale. Similar laws exist in North Carolina, California, Hawaii, and Washington, with time ranges of 10 to 30 days.
Some states even impose waiting periods -- which comply with the Second Amendment -- on gun sales where the buyer has successfully completed a background check.
There is strong evidence that the current "default proceed" waiting period of only three days allows prohibited purchasers to obtain firearms. As a 2009 report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns explained, "According to data provided by the FBI, default proceed sales are more than 8 times more likely to be associated with a prohibited purchaser than sales where the purchaser's background check is resolved within three days." Data collected by the FBI also indicates that in 2012 the "default proceed" provision put guns in the hands of 3,722 prohibited purchasers.
Polling has indicated strong support, even among gun owners, to extend the time authorities have to complete background checks.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign launch speech viciously denigrated Mexican immigrants and strongly split conservative media figures on his candidacy. While some argue Trump is a "rodeo clown," others think he is "saying things that need to be said." Several conservatives disagree with Trump's rhetoric but claim he's raising important issues.
From the July 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Toxic air pollution from power plants has been linked to serious health problems including cancer, heart attacks, and premature death, and mercury in particular is a potent neurotoxin that is especially dangerous for young children and pregnant women. But that hasn't stopped conservative media from joyfully celebrating a U.S. Supreme Court decision that jeopardizes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) plan to rein in this harmful pollution.
Conservative media outlets are attacking Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley for purportedly "taxing the rain" as governor of Maryland. But as The Baltimore Sun noted, the state did "not tax the rain." O'Malley approved an anti-pollution levy on certain property owners to comply with federal law protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
The talking point that O'Malley allegedly "taxed the rain" has been frequently used by conservatives since his presidential announcement. For instance:
Does the pope's support for action on climate change contradict Catholic principles? Climate science deniers want you to think so -- and conservative media are running with their myths. Here are the facts:
National Review's Kevin Williamson declared that the epidemic of campus sexual assault "is a fiction" and compared efforts to curb the crime to "mass hysteria" during the Salem Witch Trials.
Rolling Stone recently retracted its controversial article on sexual assault at the University of Virginia, following a review by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) which determined the report to be a "journalistic failure."
National Review correspondent Kevin Williamson responded by issuing a blanket denial of the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country. "There is no epidemic of rapes on American college campuses," Williamson wrote. "The campus-rape epidemic is a fiction." He likened outrage over campus sexual assaults to "mass hysteria" during the Salem Witch Trials and "the Satanic-cult hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s."
But sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue -- and one that experts say is vastly underreported. Experts have estimated that one in five women will be sexually assaulted while at college, and the problem may be even more serious than statistics on the crime reveal. According to the Rape, Abuse, And Incest National Network, sexual assault is "one of the most under reported crimes," with nearly 70 percent of crimes going unreported to police.
National Review's response to the CJR report on Rolling Stone takes the very position CJR explicitly warned against. In its review, CJR cautioned that the Rolling Stone case should not be used to discredit the larger movement to address campus sexual assault, writing, "It would be unfortunate if Rolling Stone's failure were to deter journalists from taking on high-risk investigations of rape in which powerful individuals or institutions may wish to avoid scrutiny but where the facts may be underdeveloped."
Moreover, Williamson's attempts to deny the seriousness of campus sexual assault are in line with National Review's history of repudiating the existence of rape. The outlet has repeatedly dismissed efforts to curb sexual violence, even going so far as to blame victims for crimes perpetrated against them.
National Review ignored overwhelming evidence showing second-generation Latinos besting their parents by every socioeconomic indicator to claim that the Latino community in America has "so far been unable to achieve the upward mobility of previous immigrant groups."
On March 20, National Review published an article by Washington Examiner's Michael Barone suggesting that the Latino community in America has "so far been unable to achieve the upward mobility of previous immigrant groups." Barone pointed to "second-generation Hispanics hav[ing] more negative health outcomes, higher divorce rates, and higher incarceration rates than their immigrant elders" to argue that "so far the Hispanics who crossed the southern border don't seem to have moved upward as rapidly as Italian-Americans did in the last century.
But Barone ignored key economic indicators illustrating that U.S. born children of Latino immigrants are substantially better off than their immigrant parents. According to a 2013 report from the Pew Research Center, second-generation Latinos have higher household incomes than immigrant Hispanics, more of them complete college, and 93% of second-generation Latinos speak English "well or very well, a stark difference from first-generation Hispanics."
National Review editor Rich Lowry is painting Loretta Lynch, President Obama's nominee to be the next attorney general, as a controversial pick who should "never be confirmed," because she has suggested that the president's executive actions on immigration are lawful. Not only is Lowry's analysis of the legality of the actions contradicted by experts, his erroneous description of such prosecutorial discretion as "executive action" has been debunked, and presidents generally do not nominate chief enforcement officers who promise to go after their sponsor.
Right-wing media have been hard-pressed to find a legitimate reason to oppose Lynch's nomination, instead relying on specious attacks and, in one instance, going after the wrong Loretta Lynch. Lowry's March 18 op-ed for Politico was likewise devoid of any substantive critiques of Lynch's legal positions or her qualifications. Still, Lowry argued that Senate Republicans should "never" confirm Lynch because she believes -- as is the wide consensus among legal and immigration experts -- that the president's executive actions on immigration, a modified Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and a new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), are lawful.
As all the Republicans opposing her nomination make plain, the issue is her belief that President Barack Obama's executive amnesty is lawful.
This isn't a mere matter of policy or personal preference. It implicates her view of the constitutional order that she will be sworn to uphold. Whether she thinks the executive branch can in effect write laws on its own is a threshold question. Her answer in the affirmative should be disqualifying, no matter how impressive her career has otherwise been, or how historic her confirmation would be.
On the merits, when should Republicans bring her up for a vote -- now delayed because Democrats are filibustering a sex-trafficking bill? Never. When should they confirm her? Never.
The Senate shouldn't confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation's laws at will.
Loretta Lynch, President Obama's pick to replace Eric Holder as the U.S. attorney general, is a highly regarded and well-qualified federal prosecutor who has support from law-enforcement authorities and politicians on both sides of the aisle. But that hasn't stopped right-wing media from mounting a smear campaign to thwart Lynch's nomination. With reports indicating that GOP leadership may yet again block an up-or-down vote on Lynch's nomination, here are some of the most nonsensical arguments against her confirmation and facts that media outlets have missed -- or misrepresented -- about Lynch.
In a rush to find fault in Obama's well-qualified nominee, the right-wing website Breitbart.com managed to attack the wrong Loretta Lynch, not once, but twice. In a November 8 post, Breitbart.com writer Warner Todd Huston claimed that "few are talking about" the fact that Lynch defended the Clintons during the Whitewater probe in 1992 -- probably because it wasn't the same Loretta Lynch who was nominated. After learning of the mistake, Breitbart.com noted at the bottom of the one article that was not taken down, "The Loretta Lynch identified earlier as the Whitewater attorney was, in fact, a different attorney."
Right-wing media have also tried to paint Lynch as a dangerous partisan. National Review's Hans von Spakovsky characterized Lynch as "on the side of radical" because she supported the Department of Justice's legal challenges against strict voter ID laws, which are based on half a century of modern civil rights precedent. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs complained that Lynch's membership in the historically black sorority Delta Sigma Theta was "controversial" because Holder's wife pledged at the same time. It is true: At times, she has defended civil rights, and she once belonged to a well-known sorority.
Senate Republicans turned to some of right-wing media's go-to contributors to turn Lynch's confirmation hearing into what Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called a "sound bite factory for Fox News." The Republicans' witness list included:
When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked if any of them had a problem with Lynch's nomination for attorney general, none of them raised their hands -- they were there to complain about their favored right-wing media topics, and they did.
Media figures are exploiting the feeding frenzy over Hillary Clinton's email to engage in wild speculation, including wondering if she committed a felony. Numerous independent legal analysts have said that Clinton did not violate the law through her use of a non-government email account.
State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki and her deputy, Marie Harf, have spent the week being attacked by right-wing media. They have been targets of particularly harsh, personal attacks, using language that demeans both women and is almost never used to describe men in similar high-profile positions, regardless of what they say.
On February 19, the Daily Caller equated Psaki to a game where players take turns kicking a bead-filled ball around, when it was announced she has been tapped by President Obama to be the White House Communications Director: "Hacky Psaki: Obama Spokeslady Kicked Back To WH After Stint At State Dept."
The National Review's Ian Tuttle called the two women an incapable "hapless duo" with a "Lucy and Ethel routine" (Harf is blonde, Psaki a red head) who were trying to create a version of the comedy film Legally Blonde at the US Department of State. In a separate piece, the conservative journal of record's Kevin Williamson called Harf "cretinous" and a "misfit who plays Messy Marvin to Jen Psaki's feckless Pippi Longstocking."
It's one thing to disagree with and criticize a strategy or policy, it's another to belittle and undermine a person's intelligence and legitimacy by resorting to misogynist attacks.
I've worked with Jen Psaki, she's no lightweight. While I don't know Harf, according to her bio she spent two years during the Bush administration as a CIA analyst on Middle East leadership issues, has a masters degree in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia, and a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science with concentrations in Russian and Eastern European Studies and Jewish Studies, having graduated from Indiana University with honors.
Despite their credentials, Rachel Campos-Duffy, co-host of Fox News' Outnumbered, mocked the two women by saying they look more like sorority girls than serious professionals. Duffy's comment illustrates that denigrating, sexist comments reducing women to commentary about their looks or their intelligence aren't constrained by gender; nor are they constrained by political party, as attacks leveled from conservatives about Michele Bachmann's migraines illustrated.
The media's absurd 30+ year obsession with Hillary Clinton's appearance and David Letterman's comment that former Governor Sarah Palin had a "slutty flight attendant look" make it clear that almost nothing is out of bounds when criticizing a woman regardless of what she is saying. I say that as someone who -- despite profound substantive differences -- spoke out against the attacks made on both Palin and Bachmann.
What makes the right-wing media attacks against Harf even more egregious -- despite the familiarity of the larger pattern -- is that she is essentially saying the same thing a number of high-profile conservative men have also said previously. Yet those men weren't attacked -- some were even praised.
Harf drew the wrath of conservatives for commenting that "We cannot kill our way out of this war" against the Islamic State during a February 16 interview on Hardball. For this she is being portrayed as a "a damn naïve fool" by conservatives, who ignore her full comments, suggesting that she didn't also talk about the importance of military strikes as well as other tactics:
HARF: We're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians. So are the Jordanians. They're in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need, in the longer term - medium and longer term - to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups.
You're right, there is no easy solution in the long term to preventing and combatting violent extremism, but if we can help countries work at the root causes of this - what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business? Maybe we can try to chip away at this problem, while at the same time going after the threat, taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners around the world.
Rush Limbaugh certainly didn't call Admiral Michael Mullen, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, a "little girl" or say that he sounded like a "valley girl" when he basically said the same thing about the war in Afghanistan in 2008 testimony:
MULLEN: We can't kill our way to victory, and no armed force anywhere -- no matter how good -- can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation.
While they were talking about different parts of the world at different times, both Harf and Mullen are making a broader point that given the nature of terrorist threats and the strategies they employ -- from the way they utilize social media, finance their operations, recruit and train from all over the world, targeting those who are most vulnerable to their message -- America must have a strategy that is multi-faceted and multi-national. That strategy includes not only airstrikes but also social media, helping countries build democratic institutions, and stabilizing their economy with the means for people to make a living.
National Review's editorial board is arguing that Senate Republicans should "resist" Loretta Lynch's nomination to become the next U.S. attorney general because the board refuses to believe that "amnesty" is not forthcoming, and it falsely claims Lynch thinks there is a constitutional right for undocumented immigrants to work.
On January 28, Lynch appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where questions from Republican members focused primarily on whether Lynch believes that President Obama's immigration action was legal. Legal experts agree that the action -- which temporarily defers deportations for some undocumented immigrants who meet a series of qualifications and pass a criminal background check -- is a lawful exercise of the president's authority to use prosecutorial discretion to prioritize some deportations over others.
Nevertheless, right-wing media are playing up questions from Republican senators who believe that the immigration order is unconstitutional and attacking Lynch for her responses, even if they don't understand what she said. National Review took it further in a January 29 editorial, claiming that confirming Lynch would be "an abnegation of [Senate Republicans'] November mandate and, even more important, their constitutional duty."
The editorial also claimed that Lynch had "evaded questions" from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) about whether Obama's "amnesty order" will allow law-enforcement agencies to make decisions case by case. The editorial went on to take Lynch's comments about whether undocumented immigrants have the right to work out of context and ignored her subsequent clarification, calling her remarks "constitutionally insupportable":
In Senate confirmation hearings held this week, Ms. Lynch has evaded questions from Louisiana senator David Vitter about whether the amnesty order will actually be carried out on a "case-by-case basis," as even the administration's own lawyers say is required by law, and from Utah senator Mike Lee and Texas senator Ted Cruz about whether a future president could, under President Obama's rationale of "prosecutorial discretion," decline to enforce tax or labor or environmental laws. But among the things she has stated unequivocally is her belief that the president's executive order is "legal and constitutional." She even went further, telling Alabama senator Jeff Sessions that "the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here." Such an assertion is both ahistorical and constitutionally insupportable. But it is the president's own alarming view, and simply confirms that Ms. Lynch, like Eric Holder, would lend the Justice Department's endorsement to the president's lawlessness.
As even Fox News host Megyn Kelly has admitted, the executive action is not amnesty -- it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, common in all forms of law enforcement and not just in the context of immigration. According to Kelly, the word "amnesty" is "a hot-button term that the right uses to sort of get people upset."
Fox News celebrated Duke University's decision to cancel planned weekly broadcasts of Muslim calls to prayer from the campus chapel, crediting viewers and outraged citizens' public outcry over the "unequal treatment" being given to Islam relative to Christianity for the university's reversal. But Fox reports glossed over the real reason behind Duke's move: security threats stemming from an anti-Islam backlash to the plan.
Duke University abandoned plans to allow Islamic students to broadcast a weekly call to prayer from the university chapel after receiving a "credible and serious security threat," according to a university spokesman. Raleigh's WRAL noted that the initial decision to allow the three-minute long calls to prayer "caused a national furor," citing a Facebook post by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, in which he attacked Duke's decision because "followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn't submit to their Sharia Islamic law."
Fox News, which also responded to the initial announcement with outrage, celebrated the university's reversal. On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy validated the public outcry, saying "There is no amplified Christian message ... It just seemed like they were including the Muslim faith, but they were excluding all the others." He attributed Duke's reversal to viewers contacting the university: "A lot of you made your opinion known, a lot of people contacted Duke, and they have done a 180."
Co-host Brian Kilmeade consoled Duke's Muslim community by saying, "If you do want to pray at the right time, you can get a watch."
Doocy briefly acknowledged that a security threat played into the university's decision, but glossed over its impact or the nature of the threat. Later, a news report on Fox's America's Newsroom ignored the security threat entirely, as host Martha MacCallum quipped, "Community outcry prompted this change ... They got some word from donors as well, from what I hear. That helped them expedite that decision."
While Fox celebrated the successful outcry, Omid Safi, director of the Duke Islamic Studies Center, told The Atlantic that there were "numerous verified instances of credible threats" against members of the university community:
"My disappointment is primarily directed toward people who find it acceptable to have recourse to violence, even the threat of violence, to make the point they want to make--particularly if they see these threats as being substantiated by their own religious conviction," Safi said. "We all know about the Muslim community having our crazies, but it seems like we don't have a monopoly on it."
These threats follow weeks of ramped up Islamophobic vitriol on Fox News and right-wing media as a whole, in which conservatives have largely abandoned even the appearance of tolerance after attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. One Fox host brazenly confessed, "I'm an Islamophobe ... You can call me it all you want. "He was joined by a carousel of extreme voices pushing myths about the dangers of the Muslim community.