Progressive Democrats Sonoma County

After Glenn Beck’s 8-28 rally, WorldNetDaily tried to jump the bandwagon by publishing an article by freelancer Anita Crane, headlined “Glenn Beck crowd: Not so white as advertised.” In it, Crane featured one attendee of the rally, Ron Miller, “a black Christian and author of ‘Sellout: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch,’ " who said that “Beck got it right when he asked us to get down on our knees and repent to God for the salvation of our nation." The Drudge Report later linked to Crane's WND article.

Miller was very happy about all the attention -- he told Southern Maryland Online that sales of his book "spiked on Amazon.com from not registering to #16 the sales ranking for books on Church and State. ... The overall ranking went from somewhere in the 400,000 - 500,000 range to 12,071."

The end of the Southern Maryland Online article, though, includes this interesting note:

Note: Ron volunteered that the article on WorldNetDaily which mentioned him was written by the woman who edited his book.

That would be Anita Crane. Indeed, promoting Miller’s book on her personal website, Crane described herself as “Ron’s editor and contributor.”

Did Crane’s WND article disclose that one of the interviewees is an author whose book she edited? Nope.

Then again, WND has a long history of violating journalistic ethics by failing to disclose its personal and financial interests in the subjects and people it writes about, so it's probably not surprising that Crane thought she could get away with it too.

Following polls that show Americans increasingly believe (wrongly) that President Obama is a Muslim, conservative media figures predictably blamed Obama for this perception. There have been many lowlights, but you'd be hard-pressed to outdo Brian Kilmeade suggesting Obama should have "kept his name as Barry and not Barack" if he "was worried" about people thinking he's Muslim. In finding increasingly absurd ways to blame Obama for conspiracy theories about him, conservatives have conveniently ignored their own role in relentlessly promoting them.

Closely tied to the falsehood that Obama is a Muslim is the "birther" conspiracy theory that Obama has a fake birth certificate.                                                                                                            

Despite the fact that this conspiracy is, you know, insane, it refuses to die. As we noted yesterday, Fox News military analyst Thomas McInerney told conservative publication/birther central WorldNetDaily that he believes there are "widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office" and expressed support for an Army officer who is awaiting a court-martial for refusing to obey orders from commanding officers "until the president produces his original birth certificate." McInerney is far from the only birther associated with Fox News.

Sean Hannity - who has dipped his toe in the birther pool in the past by asking what's wrong with asking if Obama has a "legitimate birth certificate" - is hosting widely discredited smear artist, birther extraordinaire, and WND "reporter" Jerome Corsi tonight as part of his "Great American Panel."

Corsi has been one of the main promoters of Birtherism online, churning out countless articles on the subject for WorldNetDaily (sample headlines: "Doubts persist about Obama birth certificate, Considerable evidence still points to candidate's birth in Kenya"; "New doubts revealed in Obama's nativity story"; "Just who delivered baby Barack Obama?").  

Glenn Beck has made a big deal about how his new website, The Blaze, will be staffed by real “journalists” who will “stand in the middle” and tell the truth without taking sides. But as others have noted, The Blaze seems to be short on actual journalists and long on right-wing political operatives.

One of them is Pam Key, the activist behind the Breitbart-promoted operation Naked Emperor News (as it so happens, The Blaze is edited by former Breitbart operative Scott Baker). Key’s videos are well known for attacking the Obama administration while omitting necessary context:

• Key falsely characterized the budget reconciliation process -- at the time reportedly under consideration during debate over health care reform -- as the “nuclear option.” Her video sought to portray Democrats as hypocrites by including clips of Democratic senators in 2005 criticizing what they called the “nuclear option.” But the two were not the same -- the Democrats in the video were criticizing a Republican attempt to change filibuster rules, while the proposal to pass health care reform using reconciliation worked within existing rules.

• Key falsely suggested that Obama promised that he would pass health care reform only with a supermajority of support.

• Key took Rev. Jim Wallis out of context to claim that he supports “forced redistribution of wealth.”

• Key promoted a 2001 radio interview by Obama adviser Cass Sunstein discussing the idea of having websites present opposing views to their own without noting that in 2007, Sunstein declared it a “bad idea.”

• Key took Elena Kagan’s words out of context by portraying her argument before the Supreme Court as advocacy of a law banning books “because government won't really enforce it.” In fact, Kagan specifically argued that federal law had never banned books and likely could not do so.

With this kind of history, it’s no surprise that Key’s first video for The Blaze is similarly misleading. Headlined “Key Obama Ally Works with Socialists for Global Tax,” it features the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka discussing a proposed global transaction tax intercut repeatedly with a clip of Obama talking about spending his birthday with “good friends” like Trumka. Key thus implies that Obama and his administration support the transaction tax.

But they don’t.

This seems a bit odd.

The Journal ran a big, A1 story today about how awful the political landscape is for Dems heading into November. I know, not exactly ground-breaking territory, but the topic is certainly fair game.

But look at how the Journal backed up its doom-and-gloom claim [emphasis added]:

Just months ago, Georgia's Rep. Jim Marshall faced only faint headwinds as he sailed toward the midterm elections. The former Macon mayor--and one of Congress's most conservative Democrats--had plenty of cash and no significant Republican opponent.

But in a reflection of his party's fortunes nationwide, Mr. Marshall's prospects have dimmed of late. The three-term congressman now faces an energized foe and the focus of the national Republican Party in a race that polls indicate is increasingly tight.

And which "polls" did the Journal reference?

But a recent Republican poll showed Mr. Marshall leading state Rep. Austin Scott by just five percentage points, within the poll's 5.7% margin of error. His overall support was just 44%, a bad sign for an incumbent.

So the "polls" showing the Republican candidate doing well was really a single poll. And it was a Republican poll.

And watch as the Journal did the same thing again in the same article:

Another seat that has tilted recently in the Republicans' favor is Pennsylvania's 8th District in the northeastern suburbs of Philadelphia, where two-term Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy is neck-and-neck with the man he beat in 2006, former Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick.

A Republican poll released last week showed Mr. Murphy lagging behind his opponent, 41%-48%. The Democratic Party is expected to sink significant money into the race.

Yep, another example of another Republican candidate doing well. How do Journal readers know? Because a Republican poll says so.

I'm not suggesting that lots of Democratic candidates aren't in trouble this fall. But should the Journal really be touting Republican polls to make that point?

The war of words between right-wing author Ann Coulter and WorldNetDaily birther king Joseph Farah just keeps raging.

It all started when Coulter agreed to headline “Homocon,” a gathering of gay Republicans in New York City on September 25. GOProud -- the group sponsoring the event -- described the pundit as, “the right wing Judy Garland!” in promotional materials despite her long history of homophobia, gay baiting, and name-calling when it comes to the LGBT community.

As the real Judy Garland was spinning in her grave somewhere over the rainbow, Farah was gearing up for an attack on Coulter over the appearance.

In mid-August, Farah announced that Coulter had been axed from her role as keynote speaker at his “Taking America Back National Conference” scheduled for later this month in Miami because she had agreed to headline “Homocon.”

Speaking exclusively to WorldNetDaily, his own publication, Farah revealed details of private emails between Coulter and himself.

In those emails, Coulter purportedly indicated that she was only speaking to GOProud because she was being paid and that she regularly speaks in front of audiences with which she disagrees.

Furious that details of their private email discussions had been released, Coulter attacked Farah both online and on television.

In an email to Tucker Carlson’s conservative Daily Caller, Coulter wrote that Farah was going after her for “publicity alone,” that she believed her emails with Farah had been “private” and that he was a “swine” and a “publicity whore” for using them. She also said that Farah, “could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement -- as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense.”

Ultimately she reiterated her opposition to gay marriage (and her “like” of gays), concluding that Farah hadn’t canceled her keynote at all – he just couldn’t come up with the money to pay her booking fee.

Then, appearing on Fox News’ Red Eye, Coulter went a bit further. Speaking at times in the third person, she called Farah and WorldNetDaily “fake Christians trying to get publicity.”

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Farah responded in a statement -- again to his WorldNetDaily -- saying, “Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this – throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."

Seeing Farah take Coulter to task for “ad hominem attacks” in an “age of reckless anger and character assassination” is pretty funny considering it is one of the many similarities the two share.

After a few days off, Farah decided to launch some “ad hominem attacks” of his own against the LGBT community in an effort to breath new life into his spat with Coulter.

In a column this week titled “The homo con continues,” Farah writes that since Coulter accepted the “Homocon” headlining role other “Republicans and ‘conservatives’ [were] now lining up to support” GOProud.

Farah went on to say that the event “literally represents the homo conning of the Republican Party and the conservative movement” and that we are “witnessing the destruction of Washington's conservative establishment before our eyes.” He sees those supporting GOProud as tacitly supporting such things as “liberty-destroying hate-crimes legislation” and “special government perks for homosexuals.”

It may sound funny but it is no laughing matter for Farah -- in his eyes, he’s the only one in “the Republican Party or the conservative movement standing up to this wholesale retreat on some fundamental conservative issues.” He’s “the only one willing to stand up for liberty as a gift of God.”

Thus far, Coulter hasn’t seen fit to further extend her back and fourth with Farah -- despite the birther king’s best efforts.

For those of us watching at home, the fight between the anti-gay and the slightly-less-anti-gay has been quite a spectacle, which is probably what Coulter and Farah (independently) had in mind.

Continuing its practice of hosting some of the ugliest rhetoric around, the Washington Post’s On Faith microsite currently features an angry rant in which Danielle Bean suggests Barack Obama isn’t really a Christian and questions his “loyalties”:

I am not uneasy about President Obama's religion because I suspect he is a practicing Muslim. I am uneasy about his religion because I see a disconnect between the Christian faith he professes and his own words and actions.

There is nothing remotely Christian about supporting the legalized slaughter of unborn human beings for all nine months of pregnancy and even opposing legislation that would require basic medical care be given to those helpless infants accidentally "born alive" after botched abortions.

When a man who claims to be Christian mocks those who "cling to their guns and religion," his words give me pause. When a man who claims to be Christian embraces such messianic titles as "the One" and has the audacity to claim that "we are the ones we've been waiting for," I don't hear a Christian speaking. I hear a proponent of the "Religion of Me."

To me, the president's faith matters most when I begin to suspect he's putting it on for show. When a man's own words and actions fail to match up with his professed beliefs, I think every American citizen can and should ask the legitimate question:

President Obama, where do your loyalties lie? [Emphasis added]

That professed concern about “a disconnect between the Christian faith he professes and his own words and actions” could, of course, be applied to every Christian politician -- those who favor the death penalty, or unjust wars, or policies that benefit it the wealthy at the expense of the poor come to mind -- but Bean applies it only to President Obama. That, coupled with Bean’s disingenuous claim that Obama has “embrace[d] such messianic titles as ‘the One’” -- that’s a term of derision political conservatives use for Obama, not a title he claims for himself -- call her sincerity into question.

But that probably shouldn’t be surprising given Bean’s track record. In a previous On Faith entry denouncing Jennifer Aniston, Bean wrote: “Who needs a dad? Every child does. Even unbiased studies and statistics say so.” That link for “unbiased studies” takes you to a column by Heritage Foundation fellow Rebecca Hagelin, which cites another Heritage Foundation “expert,” and which includes a note indicating that the column “First appeared on WorldNetDaily.”

Yep, nothing says “unbiased” like a column by a Heritage Foundation fellow which relies on the work of the Heritage Foundation and which was first published by the looney Birthers at WorldNetDaily!

And that’s what passes for a “distinguished” panelist at the Washington Post’s site dedicated to “intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation”: Someone who questions the President’s religion and “loyalties” and who considers WorldNetDaily and the Heritage Foundation “unbiased.” No wonder On Faith treats Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck as the nation’s leading religious thinkers.

Last night, Fox News televangelist Glenn Beck railed on universities, declaring that "we have been setting up re-education camps. We call them universities." Beck also explained that "our children are being submerged in the filth of communism" at schools around the country.

While Beck lobs the usual conservative vitriol at the supposed indoctrination taking place on many campuses around the country, he apparently does not think all institutions of higher learning are evil.

In May of this year, Glenn Beck gave a tear-soaked commencement speech at Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the world. The speech included Beck's usual over-the-top rhetoric, including his advice to grads that they should "shoot to kill." In a preview of his dramatic recent turn towards hyper-religiosity, Beck declared that God's "finger was on the back of Columbus," and that "God's finger...wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." He added, "This is God's country. These are God's rights."

Both before and after his commencement speech, Beck has hosted Jerry Falwell Jr. -- current chancellor of Liberty University -- to discuss issues like social justice and plug Liberty U.

But Beck has done more than allow Falwell Jr. to plug his university; Beck himself has explicitly endorsed Liberty as a "university where your kids are safe, and your kids can actually learn, and not be filled with a bunch of nonsense." During a June 25 segment on his radio show, Beck and Falwell Jr. discussed a donated four year scholarship to Liberty University that Beck was going to auction off as part of fundraising for Beck's then-upcoming "Restoring Honor" rally.

From a September 2 Huffington Post article by Sam Stein:

Keeping up its war with Fox News, the Democratic Governors Association on Thursday filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission accusing the network of making an illegal in-kind contribution to gubernatorial candidate John Kasich (R-OH).

The complaint, clocking in at seven pages and signed by the DGA's Executive Director Nathan Daschle, makes some far-reaching charges. But the basic allegation is that Fox's decision to run a hyron featuring Kasich's website at the same time that the Republican Senate candidate was soliciting donations on Bill O'Reilly's show constitutes an in-kind contribution from the station to the candidate.

"There is reason to believe that FOX News Network, L.L.C. violated Ohio election law on August 18, 2010 when John Kasich appeared on a network program, solicited contributions for his campaign, and FOX News added the graphics "John Kasich (R), KasichforOhio.com" under Mr. Kasich's image. The Kasich campaign raised more than $21,000 from the FOX News solicitation," the complaint reads.

There are two election law violations that the complaint sites. The first is the prohibition of in-kind contributions in the form free political advertising -- which in the case of Kasich's appearance on Fox lasted "at least 1 minute and 30 seconds," according to the DGA. The second violation is the failure of Fox News Network LLC "to provide a 'paid for by' disclaimer on its political advertisement for John Kasich."

Previously:

O'Reilly does his part for FoxPAC: Interviews gubernatorial candidate Kasich without disclosing News Corp.'s donation to RGA

Beck gushes to Kasich: "I think I love you"

Politico: Kasich's Fox News ties "reap financial rewards in addition to promotional advantages"

FoxPAC: Dem govs' org asks for Fox News disclaimer following $1 million GOP donation by parent company

Hey, I'm just telling you what the daily tracking poll numbers at Gallup tells us:

-Aug. 30, 2009: 51 percent

-Sept. 1, 2010: 47 percent

I realize that Sean Hannity on Fox News last night announced that Obama had just suffered the worst August for any president ever. And I realize much of the Beltway press has echoed that sentiment, and in fact has spent much of this year pushing its beloved narrative about how Obama's polling numbers are  "falling" fast, and that his presidency is in rapid decline.

But is it true?

Just because the mainstream media and the GOP Noise Machine are (surprise!) in heated agreement about that point, and have been for months, does that make it true? I realize pointing out the fact that Obama has lost four points in his Gallup polling numbers over the last 52 weeks won't do much to discourage that narrative, and who knows, maybe he's about to take a big hit in the Gallup poll and week from now he'll be down nine points vs. one year ago.

But it's it's always useful to address the facts. And the facts according to Gallup's daily tracking poll are that in the last 12 months Obama's approval rating has declined four points. That, in a poll that has margin of error of 3 points. 

In commentary on President Obama's speeches, conservative media have apparently concluded that references to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech are a handy tool to use, no matter the topic at hand. For instance:

Obama's August 31 address on Iraq

• On the August 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Ralph Peters said that when he "listened to" Obama's speech on the end of combat operations in Iraq, "two ghosts appeared. One was the Jimmy Carter malaise speech. The other - the other ghost was Richard Nixon's Vietnamization speeches." (Accessed via Nexis)

Obama's June 15 Oval Office speech on the BP oil spill

• On the June 16, 2010 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said of Obama's first Oval Office address: "You know -- but what I got out of last night besides I think probably the worst Oval Office address in history or at least in close competition to Carter's malaise speech, it seems to me the Obama so-called magic is gone, the rhetoric is old and stale. The rhetorical tricks are somewhat old and boring and tiresome. You know people aren't fainting any more, Michelle." (Accessed via Nexis)

• During the June 16 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that Carter's speech "is almost verbatim what Obama said last night, almost the exact same speech." Limbaugh added, "I tell you, it's second term of Jimmy Carter! And it's liberalism 100% through and through."

• In a June 15 RedState post titled "Barack Obama Embraces His Inner Jimmy Carter," Erick Erickson wrote, "Whatever the reason, Barack Obama gave the most depressing Oval Office speech since Jimmy Carter's malaise speech. He didn't just embrace defeat, he wore it on his suit as a substitute for an argyle sweater."

Obama's June 2 speech on the economy at Carnegie Mellon

• In a June 4 article on American Thinker, Ed Lasky wrote that "President Obama's speech at Carnegie Mellon University is rightfully being compared to Jimmy Carter's notorious 'malaise' speech," adding, "All that was missing was the cardigan sweater."

• In a June 13 editorial headlined "Malaise at Mellon," IBD wrote, "It might as well have been President Carter addressing the audience of students and faculty at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University. Instead it was President Obama who spoke of our dependence on fossil fuels and blamed everybody and everything, except for a lack of presidential leadership, for our current situation." The editorial concluded by stating, "If the students at Mellon were anxious, they had reason to be. We have labeled Jimmy Carter our worst ex-president. He may soon have a rival for that title."

• A June 8 FoxNews.com piece, conservative activist Michael Reagan claimed that "You can hear echoes of that malaise speech in Obama's inaugural address when he said, 'These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.'"

Fox Nation, which has not been shy about obscuring President Obama's faith, tonight displayed the following headline on its website: "Obama is not Muslim, but..."

The headline linked to a column by Ann Coulter titled, "Obama is not a Muslim." This is the same Coulter who repeatedly promoted the lie -- three years after it had been debunked by numerous news organizations (Fox included) -- that Obama attended a madrassa as a child in Indonesia, and who has relentlessly smeared Islam and Muslims.

In her column, Coulter argues that the "nonsense" about Obama being a Muslim "has got to stop" because Obama "is obviously an atheist." She goes on to write that while Obama has professed to be a Christian, the "only evidence" is that he attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years -- which "is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky." She concludes by writing that "[a]ll liberals are atheists," adding, "There's only one true Christian liberal in the country and that's Mike Huckabee."

From Coulter's September 1 column:

The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.

Leave aside Obama's fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of "spiritual advisers," which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.

Now rest from all that "leaving aside."

The only evidence for Obama's Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.

Yes, the guy bellowing "God damn America!" is the one vouching for Obama's Christianity. That's like saying you got sober with the help of your A.A. sponsor Lindsay Lohan.

It is a fact that any non-retarded person (thank you, Rahm Emanuel!) sitting in the Rev. Wright's church for 20 minutes, much less 20 years, does not believe in God. Even stepping inside Wright's church for a moment to get out of the rain is borderline racist.

Going to Trinity United Church of Christ is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. This isn't mere sin -- everybody sins (though some with more frequency and less remorse than others).

Attending Wright's church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it "Christianity."

Previously:

Behind Obama Muslim myth stands the right wing

Right-wing media just can't quit attacking Obama's faith

On his Fox show tonight, Glenn Beck dedicated a segment to attacking Dolores Huerta, the 80-year-old labor activist who founded the United Farm Workers with César Chávez. Huerta has been widely recognized for her work, including by the Girl Scouts and the Community of Christ, which shares roots with Mormons.

Beck introduced the segment by claiming that "all the people around our president come from the same creepy circle of radical 60s types." Beck evidently objects to Huerta's participation in a Labor Department campaign informing workers, including unauthorized immigrants, about the wage and labor standards to which they are entitled. Beck didn't go into detail about the Labor Department initiative, which is interesting since Beck himself frequently asserts that illegal immigrants are being "enslaved" by corporations. For instance, this is from the July 29 edition of his radio show:

BECK: Illegal immigration is slavery. You are enslaving people. These giant corporations -- the government is doing it for voters. The corporations are doing it for cheap jobs. They don't have to provide health care. They don't have to provide -- they don't have to provide anything. They can screw with these people any way they want, put their hands in a meat grinder; "Oh really? What are you going to do?" It's slavery.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Dolores Huerta are trying to fight the very problem that Beck routinely decries. Contrary to Beck's claim that employers "don't have to provide anything," the courts have established that undocumented workers are protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Labor Department has long held a policy of enforcing labor laws without regard to immigration status. The problem is that exploited unauthorized immigrants don't know that. Solis and Huerta are trying to make sure they do.

Sure, Huerta may be trying to stop the same exploitation that infuriates Beck. But Beck finds her political views distasteful, so who cares about the substance of her work; she's getting the witch-hunt treatment. 

At least 100 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his September 1 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Credit Answers, LLC
• Merit Financial
• Goldline
• Johnson Law Group
• Freescore.com
• 1-800-Pack-Rat
• Easy Water
• Rosland Capital
• American Advisors Group
• Fox Business Network (Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano)
• Sokolove Law, LLC
• Foundation for a Better Life
• Foundation for a Better Life
• Goldline
• Lifestyle Lift
• Sokolove Law, LLC
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)

As the horrifying hostage situation at the Discovery Channel building in Maryland continues to unfold, some in the right-wing media have chosen to use the incident for political gain.

For example, conservative columnist and regular Fox News commentator* S.E. Cupp tweeted that "Discovery terrorist's ideas, if not his methods, make him ideal WH adviser," invoking smears that have been pushed by the right against science advisor John Holdren.

  

Similarly, Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft has dubbed the gunman a "leftist activist."

Though at this point we know very little about Lee, his apparent demands indicate that his views are far from being grounded in a definable mainstream ideology, either liberal or conservative. Instead, they show a clearly disturbed individual. While Lee calls for "solutions" to problems that liberals typically highlight, such as global warming and unemployment, his lengthy rant is mainly composed of absurd demands such as the following: "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions."

Additionally, Lee echoes right-wing talking points with his attack on "anchor baby filth":

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

* Cupp's position corrected.

John Stossel bravely speaks out against the scourge of … public restroom stalls that are wide enough to accommodate people in wheelchairs:

Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA.

But that’s not the only way the Americans with Disabilities Act is ruining your life, according to Stossel:

And be careful. If you fail to let a customer bring a large snake, which he calls his "service animal," into your restaurant, you could be in trouble.

All of this is because of the well-intentioned Americans With Disabilities Act, which President George H.W. Bush signed 20 years ago.

Service snakes, no doubt, disrupt millions of small businesses a year.

Sure, Stossel’s opposition to bathroom stalls that can accommodate wheelchair-bound users may seem a bit cruel, but at least he didn’t defend, say, price-gougers who charged $20 for a bottle of water in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Oh, wait …

During a segment yesterday on Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, guest host Tobin Smith and guests Monica Crowley and Tim Carney portrayed U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV), who served four terms in the Nevada Assembly, as a "political newbie."

Carney, a conservative Washington Examiner columnist, said Angle is having some problems because she's a "political newbie" who is "not a seasoned politician." Crowley, a Fox News contributor, similarly claimed Angle isn't an "establishment politician" so she's getting support because "the American people are done with professional politicians, and they want normal folks."  

When Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell pointed out that Angle actually served in elected office, Smith quickly dismissed her, stating, "Well, but you know -- she was a senator [sic] in Nevada, that doesn't --" Smith previously told Angle in an interview that she was his "hero" and an "inspiration."

Angle herself has noted that she is not a "political newbie." On a widely criticized softball interview on Fox & Friends in July, co-host Gretchen Carlson introduced Angle as "somebody who really has not been in politics before." Angle corrected Carlson, stating: "Well, I really have been in politics for about the last 12 years. I started out on a school board, and then I served four terms in the Nevada state legislature. So it's not really the first time that I've ever been here."

In addition to serving as the minority whip in the Nevada Assembly, Angle also unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Congress in 2006. Fox News' July claim that Angle is a political newcomer drew criticism from veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, and Las Vegas' Fox affiliate.

Former Bush speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson plays fast and loose with the facts:

The primary economic debate between now and the election will concern the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 -- President Bush's economic stimulus -- which are due to expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress acts. Obama has proposed to eliminate the portion of that stimulus that goes to wealthier taxpayers.

Set aside Gerson’s description of tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year as “stimulus”; that’s garden-variety spin. Focus instead on the shell game Gerson plays. First Gerson rightly notes that Bush’s tax cuts are “due to expire” under current law. Then he claims Obama has “proposed to eliminate” a portion of them. Well, no. Obama has talked about not extending them. One needn’t propose their elimination; that’s set to occur under the current law -- the one signed by Bush himself.

Gerson continues:

Democrats might break a Senate filibuster by persuading some Republicans to support an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy. Momentum, however, runs in the other direction. Republicans are unlikely to give the president a legislative victory immediately before the midterms, particularly one that increases taxes.

Again: That isn’t honest. Such a package would not “increase taxes” on the wealthy. It would allow them to increase in accordance with current policy, as signed into law by President Bush.

Gerson concludes:

Obama’s tax increase on the rich would be used to reduce the deficit, resulting in a net contraction of economic activity. Tax increases to pay for past spending do not stimulate the economy.

There’s no such thing as “Obama’s tax increase on the rich.” You can give Gerson credit for persistence if you like, but regardless of how often he blames Barack Obama for policy signed into law by George W. Bush, it simply isn’t true. The Washington Post is allowing Gerson to lie to its readers. That’s sad, but not surprising.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto tells the truth about the Bush tax cuts: 

Don’t call it "extending the Bush tax cuts." Call it "repealing the Bush tax increase." This would be entirely accurate: Taxes are going up pursuant to legislation enacted by a Republican Congress and signed by Bush.

You know things have gotten bad when a conservative columnist for a Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper is more likely to tell the truth about the Bush tax cuts than a Washington Post columnist.

Fox & Friends distorted data to deceptively compare the cost of the Iraq war and the cost of the stimulus bill, citing outdated stimulus estimates and pretending that the U.S. will not spend any additional money related to the Iraq war after 2010.  

After Fox & Friend Brian Kilmeade said he was "stunned" that Obama said the Iraq war contributed to deficits, Fox & Friend Gretchen Carlson said, "Look at the difference in the spending between Iraq, a $709 billion, versus the stimulus of $862 billion." While Carlson spoke Fox & Friends showed graphically the "difference in the spending":

Carlson promised: "You're not going to see this graph too many other places today. Trust me."

Carlson is likely right, but not for the reasons she thinks. 

During the seemingly never-ending conservative freak-out over the proposed Park51 community center, right-wing media have dismissed the idea that the right's extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric has fueled "Islamophobia" throughout the country. As we've documented extensively, based on numerous hateful protests and vandalisms of mosques around the country, this is clearly not the case. Unfortunately, we can add another piece of evidence to the growing trend.

San Diego radio station KFMB, which features a lineup of conservative talk programming, is currently hosting the following poll on their homepage:

(Though it's never a great idea to place much stock in unscientific online polls, 63% of respondents have so far answered "Yes.")

Among others, KFMB broadcasts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, and Dave Ramsey. Along with other major conservative media figures, Hannity, Beck, and Savage have worked hard to blur the lines between Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the moderate Muslims behind the planned center and the radical extremists that attacked the U.S. on 9-11. Based on the recent anti-Muslim rhetoric of these hosts, perhaps this poll doesn't seem outwardly outlandish to regular listeners of this radio station.

Yes, the hypocrisy is hard to miss here.

Conservatives are busy touting the size of Glenn Beck's "Honor" rally last weekend, claiming, as Beck does, that at least 500,000 people attended. But there is no official crowd count and in fact the only scientific attempt to tally the rally size was done by CBS, which hired an outside firm to estimate the crowd size:

To calculate attendance at the Beck rally, AirPhotosLive.com used what is called a surveillance aerostat balloon to take pictures from both above the event and closer to the ground. In the video above, which was provided by the company, you can see some of the images used to come up with a figure.

The firm concluded there were approximately 90,000 people at the rally and right-wing bloggers howled in protest. Of course, they didn't take issue with the science of the estimate. They just didn't like the results and so they whined. A lot.

In response to those complaints, Professor Stephen Doig of Arizona State University, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert who worked on the CBS crowd estimate, noted the irony in conservatives attacking his work today. The irony was that back in Jan., 2009, when Doig came up with a crowd estimate for Obama's inauguration, and the estimate (800,000) was much smaller than most other crowd estimates, conservatives loved Doig's work.

He writes:

I am amused to see that those who embraced my Obama inauguration estimate as soberly realistic are now attacking the Beck rally estimate, produced using exactly the same methods, as deliberately biased.

And sure enough, here was Newsbusters early last year specifically touting Doig's work in connection to his Obama inauguration estimate  and suggesting news orgs that used larger crowd estimates for that event were (surprise!) liberally biased.

So to recap: When Doig estimated Obama's swearing-in crowd wasn't as large as other people claimed, Doig's work was held up as the unvarnished truth. But today, when Doig estimates Beck's Lincoln Memorial crowd wasn't as large as other people claimed, Doig's work is a joke.

Good to know.