Maybe Arizonans Should Worry About Their White-Supremacist Problem

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

It's more than a little ironic, isn't it, that Arizonans will work themselves into a frenzy -- to the point of passing a police-state ordinance like SB1070 -- because of a single case like the murder of border rancher named Robert Krentz, even though the crime is being widely blamed on Mexican drug cartel activity, which is actually a distinct issue largely separate from "illegal immigration". (Indeed, it's not even clear that in fact Krentz's murder came at the hands of Mexicans.)

And yet when a white supremacist drives up next to a mixed-race couple and opens fire with a shotgun because of their races, as happened last October, the case is greeted with a yawn. As was the man's arrest this week:

A man suspected of killing a 39-year-old woman in Phoenix in October was arrested in Livingston, Tenn., on Wednesday, a Livingston Police Department spokesman said Thursday morning.

Aaron Schmidt

Schmidt is suspected of opening fire on the woman and her friend last October in what Phoenix police believe could have been a racially motivated crime.
Aaron Schmidt, 28 waived his extradition rights Thursday and can be picked up by the Phoenix Police Department, said Greg Etheredge, chief of the Livingston Police Department. Authorities believe Schmidt has been in Livingston since June.

The woman and a friend, Jeffrey Wellmaker, 48, were walking in Palma Park, on 12th Street and Dunlap Avenue about 1:30 a.m. Oct. 3 when a heavily tattooed, bald White man confronted them.

Wellmaker, who is Black, said the tattooed man yelled, "What are you doing with that White woman," according to Phoenix police at the time of the shooting.

The friends didn't respond and kept walking.

The tattooed man followed the pair for a couple blocks, police had said. By the time the couple reached Fourth Street and Puget Avenue, Wellmaker saw a white four-door newer model sedan with tinted windows drive past them.

In the passenger seat was the tattooed man. That's when Wellmaker said the passenger pulled out a shotgun and shot two blasts at the couple, according to police. One struck the woman and the second blast missed them.

The story was largely buried in the Phoenix newspapers -- perhaps because Wellmaker and the unidentified woman who was killed were homeless, instead of middle-class ranchers.

It's the same way that the case of Shawna Forde and her gang of killer Minutemen has been downplayed by the Arizona media, not to mention the national media, particularly Fox News.
It's the same way that report of camo-bedecked vigilantes firing on Latino border crossers received zero attention in any media beyond a handful of blogs:

Sheriff Antonio Estrada said that according to his department’s incident report, five undocumented migrants had crossed into the United States and were walking through a canyon around 5 a.m. on Friday when two unidentified males wearing camouflage clothing shot at them with a high-powered rifle.

“The victims claimed no demands were made. They were just walking and fired upon,” said Estrada, who added that the group had not been robbed. Estrada said that when the group ran, one of the men, Manuel Esquer Gomez, 45, from Nogales, Sonora sustained a gunshot wound to the left forearm.

As the group continued, the men stumbled upon skeletal remains of what they thought were two people.

While little is known about the attackers, Sheriff Antonio Estrada has stated that “[i]t’s perturbing to hear of people with high-powered rifles and camouflage. It raises some real red flags.” He also told KVOA that the shooters might have been U.S. citizens. “I hate to think that is what we’re looking at but we’re not going to dismiss any possibilities,” Estrada stated. “They may be individuals who may be hunting illegal border crossers. That’s really a big concern for us.”

Arizona has a white supremacist problem -- one that has been exacerbated by the nativist immigrant-bashing that has been part and parcel of the right-wing approach to the issue in Arizona. Instead of inverting the reality, at some point they're going to have to face up to it -- especially because, eventually, Latinos and homeless white people are not going to be the only victims.

Um, Rabbi, Do You Really Think It's A Good Idea To Label People You Disagree With 'Parasites'?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Um, do you think maybe someone should point out to Glenn Beck's guest on his show Friday -- Rabbi Daniel Lapin -- that, even though it may feel good to condemn all atheists as "parasites" in a "moral society," it's a profoundly irresponsible thing to do, particularly for someone claiming the title of Rabbi? After all, there is an important historical precedent for what happens when you single out an entire sector of the populace as a "parasitical element."

It's not even worth the time to point out that atheists can propose precisely the reverse claim -- that organized religions are a parasitical element on society -- with probably an even better rationale. Because this kind of rhetoric is a classic example of eliminationism.

Not that Lapin is any stranger to wielding eliminationist rhetoric:

"I am absolutely convinced that God is far from finished with the story of the United States of America," he said by way of summation. "First of all, [there's] the matter of the little battle that must be fought, just as it was in the 19th century." There were, and are, "two incompatible moral visions for this country. We had to settle it then. We're going to have to settle it now. I hope not with blood, not with guns, but we're going to have to settle it nonetheless. The good news is that I think our side is finally ready to settle it. Roll up its sleeves, take off its jacket, and get a little bloody. Spill a little blood. We'll settle it. And we'll win. And then there's no holding us back."

Indeed, this Rabbi Lapin is also known for his long associations with Jack Abramoff, as well as for being the Rabbi who David Duke loves to quote.

Lapin continued:

The sad fact is that through Jewish actors, playwrights, and producers, the Berlin stage of Weimar Germany linked Jews and deviant sexuality in all its sordid manifestations just as surely as Broadway does today. Much of the filth in American entertainment today parallels that of Germany between the wars.

"Indeed, it does," Duke writes glowingly, "It is interesting to note that there a few Jews in America who are concerned about the destructive influence of many powerful Jews. He [Lapin] is concerned not only because he believes that such evil is against his own morality but that it also inevitably brings down Gentile wrath upon Jews. The amazing thing is that there are so few honest voices like that of Rabbi Lapin."

No wonder he now shows up as a "religious authority" on Glenn Beck's show. He fits right in.

Buck-Buck Bakaw! Jan Brewer Won't Be Doing Any More Debates, Thankyouverymuch

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

After her horrendous performance the other night in her debate with Democrat Terry Goddard, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is doing what she does best: Running from tough questions ... you know, what most folks call accountability:

Arizona voters won't be seeing any more debates between the top gubernatorial contenders.

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Yes, we can imagine what that venue will be. After 20-plus appearances on Fox News and none with any local TV journalists, we're getting the idea. (When she adds later in the piece that she will "be available for interviews," we're sure she will ... with Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity.)

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.
"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Translation: why create another situation where I would just be destroyed at my own hand?

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

Actually, Jan, the issue is that you have refused to retract those remarks, even though (a) they have been proven utterly false, and (b) they have helped kill the state's tourism economy.

And the fact is, you just don't want to answer that question. Because you can't without admitting you're a crappy governor.

Beckapalooza-Goers' Racism Barely Out Of View -- Kinda Like The Paranoiac Bulletproof Vest Just Under Beck's Shirt

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sam Seder has another superb episode of "That's Bullshit" featuring the fine folks attending GlennBeckapalooza last week. One of the more interesting interviewees opines that black people should love coming to Beck events and Tea Parties -- because, after all, when they do, they're fawned all over by white people eager to prove they're not racist.

Me? I'm with Sam and the flag vendor.

Meanwhile, Jason Easley at PoliticsUSA has evidence that Beck was wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt that day. (I wondered about this myself at the time.)

That raises the question: Did Martin Luther King wear body armor on Aug. 28, 1964? Answer: No. Because he was about love, not fear.

Tea Partiers Lose Another Candidate: Colorado's Dan Maes Being Forced To Step Aside For Lying, Cheating

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Gee, no irony in this video from "the friends of Dan Maes", is there? "Last man standing," indeed:

Top Colorado Republicans are attempting to convince gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes to drop his bid for governor by the end of Friday, a well-placed Republican in the state tells POLITICO.

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

Wadhams did not respond to a call for comment and another Republican aide said he did not expect the chairman to address the media until Maes came to a decision.
A Maes spokesman indicated that the candidate was meeting with those who want him out of the race.

“Dan is listening to the concerns of those who believe he should stay in the race, as well as those who believe he should step aside. He has no plans to exit the race at this time,” said Maes spokesman Nate Strauch.

Since upending Rep. Scott McInnis in the GOP primary last month, Maes has run into a string of problems and questions about his own credibility. Earlier this week, the Post reported that Maes falsely claimed he did undercover police work in Kansas before being terminated. He lost the endorsements of former Sen. Hank Brown and former state Senate president John Andrews.

Early Friday afternoon, GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck also withdrew his support for Maes, the latest signal that his time as a candidate may be limited to days, if not hours.

Of course, no matter who they replace him with, it's over. Democrat John Hickenlooper is far ahead in the polls anyway.

How come we keep hearing about the Tea Partiers' occasional successes -- like Joe Miller in Alaska (now there's a good national barometer) -- and ignoring their multiple failures?

It will certainly be interesting to learn what these papers were about to report. Sounds like there were some juicy skeletons in Maes' closet. But then, right-wing authoritarianism does bring out the best in people, doesn't it?

Jan Brewer Refuses To Answer Questions About 'Headless Bodies' -- Even After The Debate To Reporters

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

We pointed out awhile back that Gov. Jan Brewer's fearmongering about immigration in Arizona -- painting the state as the nation's kidnapping capital, a violent place where "headless bodies" were being left in the desert -- was effectively destroying the state's economy.

Last night, it came back to bite Brewer in her televised debate with Democrat Terry Goddard -- and afterward with reporters, too:

Goddard accused Brewer of damaging Arizona's image and business prospects by portraying the state as a violent place because of border-related crime.

Goddard said that's untrue and outrageous and she should admit she's wrong. "There are no beheadings that was a false statement and it needs to be cleared up right now," he said.

She responded, "Terry I will call you out, I think you ought to renounce your support of the unions that are boycotting our state." He dismissed her demand, saying he opposes the boycott.

Afterward, reporters asked her why she didn't answer Goddard about the beheadings. They said, "About the headless bodies? Why won't you recant that… do you still believe that?" She turned on her heel and left the post-debate news conference -- and the reporters were left grumbling.

Of course, as scarce observes, it wasn't exactly Brewer's best night anyway.



So even the local Fox station was trashing her astonishing performance.

Yeah, you have to wonder how well it's going to sit with Arizona voters that Brewer will make herself into a national celebrity by appearing on the propaganda channel, Fox News, 20-plus times, but won't even talk to local reporters at all. Wonder how well that 20-point lead is going to hold up.

Joe Arpaio's Stonewalling Clock Runs Out: DOJ Files Lawsuit To Force Him To Turn Over His Records

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

After Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio steadfastly stonewalled the Department of Justice in its investigation of his racial-profiling practices -- all while appearing on Fox numerous times to bash and taunt the investigators, and having his minions do likewise -- his clock ran out today:

The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and jail policies that discriminate against people with limited English skills.

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents the federal government first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio called the Justice Department actions harrassment at a news conference Thursday morning in downtown Phoenix. His office has said it won't hand over additional documents because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating.

Last week, Arpaio announced he was challenging the request for the records -- nearly a year after it was filed.


Bet he won't be able to stonewall the FBI quite so easily.

America's Voice has the complete record on Arpaio.

Mr. Humble N' Pious: My Big Rally Was A Historic Event Like The End Of Slavery

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The mark of the truly fanatical propagandist is their fervent insistence on hyperinflating the value and importance and size of everything they're connected with -- even when they can be factually proven wrong. Like Glenn Beck yesterday, continuing to hype his incredibly boring rally Saturday in D.C. beyond whatever marginal entertainment value it might have had.

Beck continues to insist -- in the buildup to comparing garbage after his rally with the garbage left after Obama's inauguration -- that 500,000 people showed up on the Mall Saturday. But the folks at CBS News who counted only 87,000 have released their hard data so you can look at it for yourself.

I thought this in particular was interesting:

In a blog post, Doig, writing from Portugal, noted that he estimated the crowd at Mr. Obama's inauguration at roughly 800,000 - a number critics assailed as too low.

"Crowd counting, particularly of political events, always is controversial," he wrote. "The organizers of the event inevitably hype their crowd estimate -- often grossly -- to demonstrate the popularity of their cause, and opponents inevitably underestimate to fit their own agenda. Because of the wild pre-inauguration predictions of how many would attend in person -- up to 5 million! -- my reality-based estimate was ignored by many left-wing commentators and embraced by those on the right."

He added: "The frothing underscores the problem with hyped predictions of crowd size. Organizers and supporters are forced to insist loudly that the actual crowd met or exceeded their expectations, for fear that the realistic estimate will be painted as a disappointment. The time-honored way to dismiss scientific estimates that don't reflect the pre-event hype is to claim political bias on the part of those doing the estimate. 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."

So the reality is that there were about ten times the number of people at Obama's inauguration that were at Beckapalooza -- which may have something to do with why the garbage count was higher.

At any rate, as if hyperinflating the numbers of his rally wasn't enough, Beck a little later described its significance:

Beck: This is the third Great American Awakening. There have been two. One started by George Whitfield, and it led to the American Revolution. The second one happened in the 1840s and '50s, and it started with people of faith, of all faiths, and it led to the freeing of the slaves. This one is going to restore our Constitution. It's going to restore individual responsibility. It's going to restore faith, hope, and charity.

This much hubris is going to produce quite the spectacular comedown.

Murkowski's Concession To Miller Reveals The Nasty Tea Party Rift That Republicans Don't Want To Talk About

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

As the news was breaking last night that Lisa Murkowski was conceding to Joe Miller in their fight over the GOP's Senate slot in Alaska, Greta Van Susteren asked Karl Rove what he thought. Rove, to no one's great surprise, basically said nothing beyond vague generalities: "End of an era" was the best he could come up with.

Because beyond demonstrating the attraction of the Tea Party movement in places like Alaska, the race also demonstrated clearly the rift between traditional Republicans and their nutty populist counterparts -- a rift that may ruin all their hopes for November. As the ADN story notes:

Murkowski did not endorse Miller in her concession speech. She took no questions.
Miller said Murkowski called him early this evening to say she was conceding.

"I thanked her for the hard-fought contest and wished her the best and asked for unity," Miller said in a telephone interview from his hometown of Fairbanks.

Miller said he thinks Murkowski will end up supporting him in the general election. "I'm going to give her some time and we're going to talk more about it later," he said.

Yeah, no doubt she's eager to do that after you called her a hooker, Joe.

But this has Erick Erickson all upset:

Murkowski did not endorse Joe Miller. This is getting to be a trend among beaten Republicans that they don’t endorse their more conservative challengers. See e.g. Bill McCollum.

Actually, it works the other way, too: Here in Washington state, where establishment Republican Dino Rossi easily knocked off his Tea Party challenger, Clint Didier, it's been the "more conservative challenger" who has refused to endorse his fellow Republican, after Rossi politely declined to adopt Didier's positions after he won. Which resulted in an eruption of nastiness all around, as Josh Feit reported:

After Dino Rossi refused to “submit to a list of demands” from Tea Party candidate Clint Didier today to win Didier’s endorsement in the general election race against U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, Didier told PubliCola:

“It’s not a list of demands. It’s what the people want to hear from Dino. They want to hear some specifics instead of generalities.”

Didier’s spokeswoman, Kathryn Serkes was more candid with us:

“So is Dino saying, ‘Fuck you’ to those people [who supported Didier]? ‘Fuck you, I don’t need your votes? I can win with 33 percent.’”

The question now is: Will Democrats get smart and get behind Scott McAdams, the lonely progressive who up till now has been pretty much ignored by the Democratic establishment? Chris Cilizza had this:

Democrats nationally will use Murkowski's defeat as yet more evidence of the tea party movement's growing power within the GOP. (Miller ran with the backing of national tea party groups.)

It remains to be seen, however, whether the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will spend anything more than rhetorical fire on the Alaska race this fall.

Little known Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams won the Democratic nod and was immediately engulfed in speculation that he could drop out of the race and be replaced by a more highly regarded candidate. (He is staying in the contest.)

And, the National Republican Senatorial Committee released a poll Monday showing Miller with a 16 point edge over McAdams -- a warning shot meant to make clear to Democrats (and the national media) that this race isn't a toss up.

What Cilizza doesn't bother to mention is that the NRSC's polling is not what you'd call independent or particularly credible. Another independent poll found Miller with only an eight-point lead -- which means that, effectively, this race is a toss-up within striking distance for McAdams.

Meanwhile, Miller's mentor, Sarah Palin, seems not to be wearing so well with Alaskans these days herself:

If Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012 she can't count on a whole lot of support back home. 62% of Alaska Republicans are opposed to her making a White House bid and she gets only 17% in a hypothetical 2012 primary in the state tying for her second with Mike Huckabee behind Mitt Romney.

Seems like that Vanity Fair piece is on the money -- and the people close to her know it all too well.

The Deeper Import Of Beck's Rally: Wedding The Tea Parties And The Religious Right

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Philip Elliott of the AP is convinced that this past weekend's GlennBeckapalooza in D.C. is a sure sign of trouble for Democrats -- though his evidence for that is almost based purely on the crowd size -- and a lot of bad presumptions about just how this is going to play with the broader electorate.

Hell, even the crowd size is far from a certain thing: There have been wildly conflicting reports, ranging from Michele Bachmann's nutso assertion that there were at least a million people there, to the far more credible and scientific estimate from CBS News that put it at about 87,000, give or take a few thousand. (Be sure to read Jed Lewison's take on it, too.

I can tell you this: Having been at the pro-immigration reform March for America last spring, where the crowd was at least twice the size of the one that was on the mall Saturday -- it was considerably more dense a crowd, and it ate up more than twice the amount of acreage (the final estimate was 200,000) -- the Beck people really haven't got a lot to brag about.

Which raises a question: How can a rally that was endlessly promoted on the most popular cable network and discussed throughout the news, yet only drew less than a hundred thousand in the end, actually indicate a more significant trend than a march that received NO advance promotion or news discussion and yet drew a crowd twice the size of Beck's?

However, given the content of Beck's rally, something significant did happen Saturday, and it will affect our discourse going forward: Beck officially and publicly married the Tea Party movement to the Religious Right.

Previously, most of the Tea Party debate focused on secular matters -- taxes, health care, immigration.

As Digby points out, the religious elements were always present as an undercurrent, but they had been mostly suppressed as the movement initially attempted to sell itself as a "spontaneous" and secular response to Obama's policies. Now, they're out in the open.

That is a deeply disturbing development, and one that will bear heavily on the direction this metastasizing madness takes.

Peter Montgomery at AlterNet has much more.

Palingenesis: Just Whose 'Honor' Was Being 'Restored' At The Big Glenn Beck Rally?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Sarah Palin's speech at yesterday's big GlennBeckapalooza, aka the "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial, was really a pretty tawdry piece of typical right-wing agitprop, whereby they wrap themselves in the glory of veteranhood and the sacrifices of our young veterans in the name of Republican wars. Can you say, "Jingo", boys and girls? I knew you could! You betcha!

But I was especially struck by the way she attacked President Obama along the way:

Palin: I must assume that you too, knowing that no, we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want, we must restore America and restore her honor!

Yeah, so much for this being "nonpolitical." And there's a funny thing about this. Why, only the night before, Glenn Beck went onstage at the Kennedy Center and declared:

Beck: We are 12 hours away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. [applause] And it has nothing to do with this city or politics! It has everything to do with God almighty!

So, is Palin disagreeing with Beck? Or did she just not get the memo that he was now adopting "fundamental transformation" as his own theme, after castigating President Obama endlessly for having suggested it? I'm guessing the latter.

And really, someone needs to ask the question: Exactly when did America lose its honor? How did we lose it?

Over at The Illiterate Electorate, Pierre Ross went out and asked exactly that question. The results are about what you'd expect:




As you can see, this rally was very much a political event for a lot of the people who turned out. They just left the kooky signs at home, mostly. But these Tea Partiers are agitated about abortion. Hey, I thought the Tea Parties were just about government spending and preserving freedom, right?

Hmmmmmm.

Which brings us to the final facet of Palin's formulation here: She opposes transformation and instead demands restoration. And we know, too, what they hope to restore: the "principles" of the "Founding Fathers" and other colonial-era political thinkers. While basking in the reflected light of wounded veterans.

There's a word for this kind of politics: It's called, appropriately enough, Palingenesis. And we really don't want to be going down that particular path -- no matter how much Sarah and Glenn may try to push us there.

Snoring Honor: Beck's Big Rally Just A Long-winded And Boring Sermon. And Boy, Was The Crowd White.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck promised there wouldn't "be a dry eye in the house" after his big speech today at the Lincoln Memorial for his "Restoring Honor" rally -- because, you know, it was going to be "so stirring."

Riiiiight. Well, Glenn Beck's eyes certainly weren't dry. He started weeping while telling the crowd that somewhere out there was "the next George Washington".

Dunno about you, but when I saw pan shots of the crowd -- which was one of the whitest crowds in D.C. in recent memory -- I mostly thought I saw "the next Timothy McVeigh." But your mileage may vary.

As for the speech itself: Lunesta in verbal form. I'm having to pick my head up from my desk just to write something about it.

It was essentially Beck's call for a return to the religious life in America -- which was why he assembled 240 representatives of various churches in the crowd and dubbed them his "new Black Robe Regiment". This part was particularly creepy, since it came with an admonition that religious leaders needed to focus on "fundamental values" -- as defined by Glenn Beck, of course.

This means, naturally, that the "social justice" for which Martin Luther King fought -- and which Glenn Beck has vigorously condemned -- would not be part of those fundamental values.

As predicted, the whole show was a hoax -- a civil rights rally for easily frightened white people.
Oh, and what about those predictions of 100-200,000 people? This looked to me more in the 50-70,000 range for D.C. (We'll update when we get an official crowd estimate.)

Meanwhile, have fun recalling all the amazing things Beck predicted would come of this rally. Yeah, that was some historic turning point, all right.

Fox Sends Out Ambush Squad To Talk To NYC Mosque Investors -- But Doesn't Mention Key Fox Investor

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

One of Fox News' affiliates, WNYW, sent out a reporter named Charles Leaf to conduct an "investigation" of the "money trail" in the patented Fox Ambush Squad style, and yesterday the results ran a couple of times on Fox itself: First Megyn Kelly carried it on her morning "news" show, then Laura Ingraham featured it on The O'Reilly Factor, including an interview with Leaf, who tried to pretend that what he was doing was real journalism.

What's peculiar about this report is that it zeroes in on a few minor functionaries in the financial chain behind the construction of the mosque -- loan guarantors and the like. Leaf invades their homes, follows them into foyers, and tries to run after them in parking lots. All this, ostensibly, to follow the "money trail" behind the mosque.

Of course, they somehow neglected to try talking to one of the imam's more generous backers -- Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Maybe that's because Talal is the No. 2 shareholder in Fox News.

Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation.

Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.

It's bad enough that they sicced their camera crews on a bunch of unsuspecting bankers, accountants and real-estate developers who are, unsurprisingly, not willing to have their lives destroyed by a scandal-mongering bunch of fake journalists on a witch hunt. But the pernicious part of this kind of reportage is the way that it implies guilt -- for some unnamed misdeed -- simply in the refusal to go on-camera.

We have long said that this style of pseudo-journalism is a violation of a whole raft of basic ethic standards for real journalists. The Fox crews disgracefully badger people outside their homes, and choose targets not merely for some official misdeed but, in some cases, merely for writing or saying something the reporter didn't like.

And this kind of reportage is even more clearly unethical, because it victimizes a bunch of ordinary citizens whose only misdeed is being associated in business dealings with an unpopular project. That's deeply disturbing.

Just remember: Whenever a Fox crew gets near you, simply repeat the magical words, "Andrea Mackris". They'll go away, as do all plagues eventually.

Laura Ingraham Plays The Victim Card: Mosque Critics Are The Victims Of Mean Accusations Of Bigotry! Waaaaaah!

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

This seems to have been Laura Ingraham Tries Out for Her Own Fox Show Week at The O'Reilly Factor, and it's been quite a bust -- largely because Ingraham has tried to use O'Reilly-style bullying of her guests, and has not just been outplayed, she's really come off as a nasty, mean-spirited whiner.

That was particularly the case yesterday, when she tried playing the Right-Wing Victimology Card in the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy: It's not Muslims who are being victimized by the hateful scapegoating of Islamophobes who want to associate them with all things 9/11 and blame them for all the world's terrorism -- rather, it's those very Islamophobes who are being victimized by the people calling them out for their bigotry.

It was particularly striking how she reacted when her guest -- a conservative Republican Muslim named Muhammad Ali Hassan -- tried to explain patiently that the very accusation that these Muslims and this mosque are somehow associated with terrorists is simply prima facie bigotry: "When you tell a group of people they're not allowed to build something because they're Muslim, that's bigotry." It really is that simple.

Ingraham acted as though someone had just spilled coffee on her lap. She began shouting Hassan down, talking over him, attacking his conservative bona fides because he dared to speak this simple truth.

And I just love it whenever right-wingers play the victim card. It's a classic case of the waving-the-bloody-shirt strategy, which magically transforms vicious and violent right-wing thugs into the woebegone victims of the meanness of the people they target.

It has really been quite the demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatives this week at O'Reilly's place. Ingraham has tried to pose as someone smarter than her guests. Consistently, she's being outsmarted and made to look like the shallow and vicious harridan we all suspect she really is.

Glenn Beck Does Remind Us Of The Civil Rights Era -- That Is, The People Who Hated Martin Luther King

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

What no one has really pointed out about Glenn Beck's upcoming pep rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is that, in claiming he's following the example of Martin Luther King, he's actually positioning this gig as a civil-rights event. But whose civil rights? Well, judging by what we've seen at the Tea Parties inspired by Beck, it's gonna be pretty damned white.

It is thus, in essence, a civil-rights march for white people. Or more particularly, for right-wing white people who feel threatened by the growing presence and power of the nonwhite population.

Of course, they don't put it that way. They know that race talk will just get them called out for what this is all really about. So they talk about "government oppression" and "taking away our freedoms" and "preserving the Constitution" and "what it means to be American". Strip these down to the bare bones -- especially when you peel away the layers of illogic required to support these claims -- and what's really at issue here is a black man leading nonwhite minorities to power, which is always perceived by authoritarians as a sign of their loss of power.

So that's what it's really about. If the rhetoric all seems terribly vague to you, that's why.

And what's really bizarre and Orwellian about this whole spectacle is that it's part of Beck's larger campaign to demonize progressives -- even though the civil-rights movement was always a progressive phenomenon, and indeed Martin Luther King Jr. often proclaimed some of the very themes, such as "social justice," that Beck loves to demonize as part of progressives' eeeeeevil plot to destroy America.

Moreover, as we've said previously and often, there's a reason conservatives like Beck should never, ever try to claim his mantle or his legacy: Because it was conservatives who attacked and demonized and opposed King at every turn in his career.

Indeed, having grown up in conservative Mormon Idaho in the 1960s, I recall the visceral hatred and fear with which King was widely regarded in those quarters. I remember seeing sheets like this:



This was a flier that was distributed nationally as part of a campaign to discredit King as a Communist. Among the foremost leaders in that campaign, especially among Mormons, was none other than the Church's future president, Ezra Taft Benson. And Benson, in fact, was close friends with Glenn Beck's guru, W. Cleon Skousen -- who was also known to smear King.

And when I watch Glenn Beck, I'm reminded of those days. Because just like the Bensons and Skousens, Beck is one of those guys who is always eager to point the finger and call someone a "communist" or a "marxist" or a "socialist".

Indeed, Media Matters put together a lovely compendium of the many ways Glenn Beck would have demonized King had they been contemporaries -- and were Beck not eager to try to claim some kind of cultural mantle from him.

Also, be sure and check out Glenn Beck Is Not Martin Luther King.

Meanwhile, Justin Elliott at Salon points out that Beck stands to make a pretty penny from this shindig.

Plus, this statement from People for the American Way:

“Forty-seven years later, Glenn Beck is trying to appropriate Dr. King’s legacy in order to push his agenda of intolerance, fear, and division. Beck says he’s ‘reclaiming civil rights.’ In fact, he’s insulting exactly what Dr. King and his movement stood for. Beck has made himself famous for his attacks on progressives, Muslim Americans, union members and even churches who preach the social justice values to which Dr. King dedicated his life. He claimed that President Obama has ‘a deep-seated hatred of white people.’ Beck is not ‘restoring honor’ to our country; he’s just fanning the flames of tired old prejudices amplified and enlarged for political gain.

“Beck’s histrionics and his deeply cynical appeals to bigotry are anathema to Dr. King’s legacy. In honoring the life work of Dr. King, Americans should stand for justice and equality for all people, and against hate and those who speak, teach and promote it.”

[H/t The Other 98% and Nicole.]

Laura Ingraham Flips Out When Guest Brings Up NYC Cabbie's Stabbing

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Wouldn't you know it: For the entire day yesterday, Fox News -- for all of its copious coverage of the NYC mosque controversy and Tiger Woods' divorce -- somehow couldn't see fit to run any kind of coverage at all about the stabbing of that Muslim New York cabbie.

Indeed, when Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer brought it up as an example of the kind of viciousness being stirred up by Fox News on The O'Reilly Factor, fill-in host Laura Ingraham completely flipped out and began shouting over him, declaring that "we haven't confirmed that yet."

Well, Laura, here's your confirmation:

A college student who did volunteer work in Afghanistan was charged Wednesday with slashing a taxi driver's neck and face after the driver said he's Muslim.

A criminal complaint alleges Michael Enright uttered an Arabic greeting and told the driver, "Consider this a checkpoint," before the brutal bias attack occurred Tuesday night inside the yellow cab on Manhattan's East Side. Police say Enright was drunk at the time.

A judge ordered Enright, 21, held without bail on charges of attempted murder and assault as hate crimes and possession of a weapon. The handcuffed defendant, wearing a polo shirt and cargo shorts, did not enter a plea during the brief court appearance.

How long before we find out he was an avid Fox watcher and Pam Geller devotee, I wonder.

Incidentally, you'll notice that this video is actually quite delightful, because Stringer won't let Ingraham intimidate him or shut him up. At one point, she tries to do an O'Reilly and orders him: "Pipe down!" But he goes on to pin her ears back by pointing out her hypocrisy on the mosque, as Alan Colmes did the night before.

Ingraham obviously believes she can outsmart and outbully these liberals she's been bringing on. Instead, she's been getting her ass handed to her. Fun to watch.

OK, Glenn, Exactly What Is Wrong With Saying 'We Are A Nation Of Christians And Muslims, Jews And Hindus, And Unbelievers'?

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

On two separate occasions this week -- first on Monday and again Wednesday -- Glenn Beck on his Fox News show has played up President Obama's line from his January 2009 inauguration address:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."

This in the middle of rants explaining why Americans suspect him of being a Muslim -- which is, of course, all Obama's fault. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with it.

And it's a funny thing, watching Glenn Beck proclaim that the day of Obama's inauguration was a "great day" for America, because we all recall how he proclaimed back then that Obama was going to install Marxism.

Indeed, you may recall that at the time of the inauguration, Beck wasn't disturbed by this line in the least. What got his knickers in a bunch was a line from the Rev. Joseph Lowery suggesting that white people need "to do what's right." You may also recall that Rev. Lowery was one of the closest allies and friends of Martin Luther King -- whose legacy Beck now wants to claim for himself.

Funny, that.

But what's really funny is that Beck never explains what's wrong with Obama's observation, other than that "no president" had ever put it that way before. (Well, duh! If he had used someone else's formulation, Beck and Co. would have accused him of plagiarism.) It's really a pretty simple statement about how our nation is home to a broadly diverse set of religious beliefs. Does Beck disagree with that?

Apparently, Beck thinks Obama should only have recognized Jews and Christians. Muslims and Hindus have no business being on the list of Americans.

And what about Mormons like Glenn Beck? After all, they too practice a "Christianity that many Americans just don't recognize".

We wonder if maybe Glenn can explain just what is wrong with that remark a little better for us.

Memo To Fauxheads: Before You Get Worked Up Over Imam's Remarks, Check The Iraq Body Count. We Do Have Blood On Our Hands.

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

The Foxheads -- with Megyn Kelly leading the torchlight parade on her (ahem) morning "news" show -- were all worked up over another quote pulled out of the files of Imam Fiesal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the so-called "Ground Zero mosque":

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims," said Imam Fiesal Abdul Rauf, speaking at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center during a question and answer session dedicated to what sponsors say was a dialogue to improve relations between America and the Muslim world.

"You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations," said Rauf, who called himself a spokesman for Islam.

Now, one may or may not quibble with Rauf's example -- namely, the prewar sanctions against Iraq that Saddam indeed used as an excuse for letting his people starve.

But there's no doubt that we have innocent Iraqi blood on our hands. At last count, the toll stood between 97,000-106,000 civilians killed in Iraq because we visited war on their country. In 2009 alone -- a year in which the toll decreased -- there were 4,644 civilian deaths recorded. So much for comparisons to the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

I'm a little surprised there's any question about this at all. But then in Fox-land, America under Bush did nothing but good and kind things around the world.

Whose Fault Is It That So Many Republicans Think Obama Is A Muslim? According To Glenn Beck, It's Obama's

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Glenn Beck yesterday on Fox News was puzzling over those Time magazine and Pew Research polls showing that more Americans than ever -- and particularly conservative Republicans -- believe President Obama is a Muslim. As he put it:

Beck: Now that doesn't make sense, because as you learn more and more about the President of the United States, those numbers should be going down. Why are they going up?

He posits only three possibilities:

Beck: Maybe it's because, as so many on the left think, Americans are just stupid, ignorant or racist. I don't believe that.

Is it because, as CBS' Bob Schieffer said on Sunday, he believes the Internet, the Internet is just a breeding ground for freaks.

... Could it be something else, Bob? Could it be? Is it because the American people have observed Barack Obama for 18 months now? And they don't know what to believe!

... Let me be clear: President Obama is not a Muslim. I'm taking his word that he is a Christian.

But here's where it falls apart for many Americans: It's a Christianity that many Americans just don't recognize!

To which we say: See Answer #1. Because Obama's brand of Christianity is obviously, simply the same kind many millions of us practice: ordinary progressive protestantism. Of course, we know all too well that evangelical Christians don't consider us real Christians -- which no doubt is where Beck gets this idea.

Beck then -- somewhat dishonestly -- runs through some of the numbers from the Pew poll about where people are getting this misinformation. Take a look, if you will at the actual question and response:

Q.58a And how did you learn about Barack Obama’s religion?
Jul 21-Aug 5 2010
60 Media (NET)
36 Media or news (non-specific)
16 Television
6 Newspapers
3 Magazines
1 Radio
1 Book (non-specific)
1 Obama’s book(s)
11 Obama’s behaviors or his own words
7 Things heard or read (non-specific)
7 Internet
6 Things heard or read during presidential campaign
4 Views of family or friends
4 Obama’s ancestry – family background, name, appearance
1 My own opinion
1 Obama’s policies towards Muslim countries or religion in the U.S.

Funny that Beck manages to omit the 36 percent who simply say "the media", or the fact that 60 percent of them total named various media, isn't it? Instead, he fixates on the 11 percent who answered that they got that perception from "Obama's behavior or his own words." Nevermind, of course, that a portion of the people who answered thus also happened to believe he's a Christian.

And FWIW, Beck is right that Schieffer's insistence that this mass ignorance/delusion is product of the Internet is bogus, considering that only 7 percent named that as their chief source of this information.

The point that eludes Beck is very clear from these numbers: This wave of ignorant bigotry is largely fueled by "the media" generally, and far and away the largest component of that is TV news.

Moreover, far and away the TV network far most likely to suggest that Obama is a Muslim -- or at best, a radical foreigner who does not share our values -- is Fox News.

So let me suggest a fourth possibility to Glenn Beck: There are millions of conservatives who believe Obama is a Muslim because conservatives watch Fox News almost exclusively, and that propaganda channel -- with the help of right-wing radio talkers, including those with Fox shows -- constantly reinforces the view that he is a dark-skinned foreigner with secret allegiances.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? And it certainly makes more sense than blaming Obama himself, who has made his Christian faith clear constantly throughout his presidency.

Though of course, it's not surprising that this possibility doesn't cross Beck's radar.

Alan Colmes Calls Out Laura Ingraham For Her Hypocrisy On NYC Mosque's Backers

[Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars.]

Filling in for Bill O'Reilly last night on Fox, Laura Ingraham led off with a "Talking Points Memo" segment castigating Daisy Khan and the backers of the "Ground Zero Mosque" for having the temerity to point out how the whole debate has served to stir up a real wave of anti-Islamic hatred.

Apparently, when minorities under siege in this country stand up for themselves, that's a real sign of "extremism" in Ingraham's book.

But then she brought on Alan Colmes, who promptly called her out for he naked hypocrisy -- having, after all, not so long hosted an interview with Daisy Khan in which Ingraham declared: "I like what you're doing."

COLMES: This is worth seeing who the intolerant people are in this country. It's interesting that the word "tolerance" was used with you and the love fest you had with Liz Cheney. But the real intolerance we're seeing are from those people who don't seem to believe in religious freedom in this country. And I'm interested that you were very much for this when you interviewed Daisy Khan or spoke with her.

INGRAHAM: Actually, you're not reading the transcript correctly, Alan.

COLMES: I did read the transcript.

INGRAHAM: I never said I was for building the mosque--

COLMES: You actually did.

INGRAHAM: --600 feet from Ground Zero.

COLMES: You actually said I don't have a problem--

INGRAHAM: I said I like what you're doing. No, I said--

COLMES: I like what you're doing, which is--

INGRAHAM: No, I said I can't find a lot of people who have a problem with it. I like what she said--

COLMES: Yes.

INGRAHAM: --about bringing Muslims into the American experience.

COLMES: Right and that--

INGRAHAM: And I repeated that last night. Absolutely.

COLMES: And that hasn't changed. That hasn't changed.

INGRAHAM: When she goes on television and calls people who question the positioning of the mosque, where it is, not the right to build it--

COLMES: Right.

INGRAHAM: --but the place of building as people who hate Muslims--

COLMES: You know--

INGRAHAM: --I reject that. That's intolerant.

Memo to Ingraham: There's an important -- and large -- difference between declaring that the opposition to the mosque is stirring up Islamohobia and claiming that everyone who's opposed to the mosque is a bigot. Khan says the former, not the latter.

In any event, Ingraham then immediately retreated to the day's favorite Fox talking point -- namely, the suggestion by the mosque's imam that America has Muslim "blood on its hands" in Iraq:

COLMES: What's happening here is a smear campaign against this imam and his wife. That's what's going on here.

INGRAHAM: Blood on their hands.

COLMES: See, you're extracting out of context something he said in 2005 without the full context of what he said. He has been very clear. In fact, in a book that he wrote published by the company that distributes this show by Harper San Francisco, he talked about how wrong it is to ever have terrorism or to kill anybody in the name of religion.

INGRAHAM: Well, he seems to say--

COLMES: That one doesn't do that.

INGRAHAM: Well, I think--

COLMES: One of his full comments said in full context, Laura--

INGRAHAM: I think, Alan -- I think what he says, and all of FOX News has been playing these comments, I think what he says to one audience oftentimes differs from what he says to another audience.

COLMES: Not true, not true because--

INGRAHAM: And it depends on what audience you're talking to.

COLMES: Not true.

Finally, Colmes lays the wood to Ingraham's filthy smear job:

INGRAHAM: The idea that a man who's supposed to be building bridges, whether you agree with him or not, makes statements about America having more blood on her hands than al Qaeda, that that is going to be an effective bridge builder?

COLMES: Laura, you are guilty of smearing a man by taking one sentence out of context and ignoring the number of things he has said that are indeed bridge building and that have -- the fact is if you look at the actual metrics, yes, we have to understand how our actions in other parts of the world affect our view of us. We have Americans dying right now in Afghanistan and Iraq--

INGRAHAM: Right.

COLMES: --in order to promote Islamic countries and work on behalf of Muslims. We have Muslims and the American military who have died.

INGRAHAM: Right, absolutely.

COLMES: And Muslims died on 9/11.

INGRAHAM: We applaud them, absolutely.

COLMES: It's about time we stop this divisive rhetoric and showed a little tolerance about religious freedom.

Ingraham responds by trying out the all-too-predictable Jonah Goldberg gambit: It's not mosque critics who are being bigoted and ugly, it's the mosque backers! (We say predictable because this is what Goldberg specializes in: Whatever ugliness right-winger indulge -- including bigotry and violence -- is always projected first onto "the Left", and thus excused or rendered moot.)

INGRAHAM: Oh, it's the tolerance only goes one way, Alan.

COLMES: And stop arguing over location.

INGRAHAM: The tolerance only goes one way.

COLMES: It goes all ways, Laura.

INGRAHAM: We're supposed to bend to the wishes of everybody else, but we can't even ask questions in our country anymore. Questions aren't allowed, I guess.

Call the waaaaahmbulance!

Sorry, Laura. Sorry, Jonah. That dog won't hunt. Just check today's news.