In his new syndicated column headlined "The New Blacklist," Pat Buchanan announces that he is departing from MSNBC. He devotes much of the column to lashing out against organizations that have called for him to be held accountable for his bigoted rhetoric:

A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice," claimed that my book espouses a "white supremacist ideology." Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, "The End of White America."

Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!

A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America's leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan's "extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world."

[...]

The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.

All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.

Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their "smelly little orthodoxies." They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.

Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.

I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.

Previously:

The Bigotry Of Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan's Bigotry: Endorsed By White Nationalists

Pat Buchanan Appears On "Pro-White" Radio Show

MSNBC's Buchanan Refuses To Condemn "Pro-White" Radio Program He Repeatedly Appeared On

After weeks of dismissing news that the economy is improving and downplaying concerns over income inequality, Fox News is now trying to pivot the conversation away from economic growth to focus on deficit reduction, even as economists continue to warn that doing so would be bad for the economy.

Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson and anchor Martha MacCallum argued that the debt "needs to be an issue" in the presidential election, and urged Republican candidates to make debt reduction "the issue" in the campaign. When guest Christopher Hahn argued that debt reduction could wait until the economy is on firmer ground before making our primary focus deficit reduction, MacCallum scoffed: "Oh please!"

Economists warn that debt reduction should wait until the economic recovery is on firmer ground. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explained that prioritizing the deficit now "makes no sense":

There are no businesses that are going to hire additional workers because the government laid off school teachers or firefighters and we cut back spending on food stamps. Businesses hire more workers when they see more demand for their product. All of these actions that reduce the deficit, either on the spending or tax side, translate into less demand and therefore less employment. In short, those who want to cut the deficit now are lobbying for fewer jobs and higher unemployment.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has argued that a premature focus on deficits would be "counterproductive."

This tactic of shifting the debate away from jobs and economic growth to fixate on debt is nothing new at Fox. In the spring of 2010, while economists were arguing that more needed to be done to reduce unemployment and help grow the economy, Fox News insisted that debt was "our number one issue." At the time, Krugman argued that "jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy."

The effect of that hijacked debate was a credit downgrade that Fox News figures cheered.

It's not just economists who say it's not time to shift attention away from economic growth. Voters overwhelmingly say that jobs and the economy should be the focus of this year's election, not the debt. Voters are also more likely to say that the economy is moving in the right direction, rather than the wrong direction; and they are more likely to say that the Republican Party is moving in the wrong direction.

All of which could explain why Fox is trying to move the debate in a different direction.

Today for the fourth time the Daily Caller has written about the Ryan Jerome, the New York City tourist and former Marine that was arrested last September for illegally carrying a concealed firearm. They currently have the story splashed across their front page:

The right-wing media is engaged in a campaign to falsely suggest New York City tourists are in danger of having "their lives destroyed" because New York has stiff penalties for illegal gun possession. In fact, New York prosecutors have repeatedly used their discretion to reach plea agreements for misdemeanor charges that keep people that made honest mistakes and are arrested for carrying concealed guns illegally out of jail.

Not surprisingly given The Daily Caller's status as a gun lobby propaganda dumping ground, they continued the depiction of New York's strong gun laws as callous, despite yet again a New York prosecutor showing a willingness to consider the mitigating circumstances of the alleged crime.

Read the full entry ...

Fox has been working hard lately to manufacture tension between religious groups and President Obama over the administration's rule providing access to birth control insurance. However, following the White House's announcement of an accommodation for religiously-affiliated employers with objections to the rule, Catholic Hospitals, Colleges, and Charities came out in support of the president on the birth control compromise. A wide range of Catholic, evangelical and mainline faith leaders also agree with the birth control rule as do the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Sisters of Mercy, and  NETWORK. So, you would think Fox would move on to a new topic.

Alas, Fox, with the help of the Republican Party, is still making the same arguments. In order to do so, Fox and the GOP are pretending that there is no religious support for Obama's birth control policy.

Today Fox's "straight news" division covered a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The hearing, chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), featured witnesses who oppose mandatory insurance coverage for birth control. However, the committee refused to allow supporters of the birth control policy to have their say. The hearing consisted of nine witnesses who opposed the birth control policy, but only gave Democrats one witness to tell the other side. Moreover, Issa rejected the witness the Democrats chose and made it impossible for two other Democratic witnesses to appear.

And Fox's "straight news" division coverage of the hearing was as diligent as Issa at ignoring religious support for the birth control rule. Fox News' America Live host Megyn Kelly showed clips of the hearing and said: "you've got a lot of Catholic and other religious leaders who are still saying 'you didn't get it done Mr. President. You should have talked to us beforehand.' " She, like the House GOP, failed to mention a single religious group that has come out in support of the birth control rule. Nor did she mention the fact that most Americans and Catholics support the birth control rule as well.

Even when you try to build an airtight echo chamber, sometimes outside and unwanted information filters in and is impossible to ignore. For Fox News, the recent unpleasantness has taken the form of falling unemployment numbers as well as President Obama's rising approval rating.

The news is difficult for Fox to digest because two of the core claims it has been making about Obama is that he's destroying the U.S. economy (and capitalism as we know it), and that he's a political failure. But now both of those storylines are unraveling based on empirical evidence about the employment rate and the president's standing in the polls.

So if you're Fox's Gretchen Carlson, what do you do this week? You suggest that the improving unemployment numbers, as tabulated by the Labor Department,  may have been "fabricated":

And if you're Fox's Sarah Palin on the same day? You suggest Obama's improved approval rating is based on "misinformation given to the American people."

In other words, Fox News is somewhere between damage control and denial, and this approach has the makings of a year-long conspiracy theory Fox will have to keep spinning throughout the presidential campaign. (i.e. People only like Obama because they are misinformed about him and because of fabricated findings.)

The plight highlights what has always been one of Fox's most pressing programming dilemmas: How is the anti-Obama channel going to explain good news for Obama? And how is Fox going to explain to fans if and when Oama is re-elected? For loyalists who tune in everyday for their daily dose of Obama Derangement Syndrome, Fox has confirmed and re-confirmed many times over that the president is a monster of historical proportions and is doing untold damage to the country as he shreds democracy and liberty.

If that's true, what would account for a possible Obama victory in November? Or in the short term, what would account for the president's growing popularity and the improving economy? For now, Palin clings to the "misinformation" claim, while Carlson peddles the line about unemployment numbers possibly being "fabricated."

That's what losing the argument looks like. 

Cable news channels hosted only one expert from the public health community during a week of coverage over the controversy surrounding the Obama administration's decision to require most employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception. By contrast, they hosted 300 guest appearances from the political or religious communities.

On January 20, the Obama administration announced that nonprofit employers -- including those connected to religious organizations -- would be required to provide health insurance coverage for contraception. After the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops registered their opposition to the rule, conservative media figures accused the administration of engaging in a "war on the Catholic church."

On February 10, President Obama announced an accommodation that would allow insurance companies to directly offer contraception coverage to employees whose employers have religious objections to such coverage.

During a five-day period when the controversy reached a boiling point, cable news channels hosted a total of 301 guest appearances, but only one of those guests was a public health expert. The rest were political figures or religious leaders.

Read the full entry ...

On the February 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Eric Bolling responded to Rep. Maxine Waters' (D-CA) recent comment that House Republican leaders are "demons" by saying in part that Waters should "step away from the crack pipe":

BOLLING: What is going on in California? How's this? Congresswoman, you saw what happened to Whitney Houston. Step away from the crack pipe. Step away from the Xanax. Step away from the Lorazepam. Because it's going to get you in trouble. How else do you explain those kinds of comments?

Bolling's comment drew some shock from co-hosts Steve Doocy and Juliet Huddy, and after a commercial break, Bolling said that he was "kidding about the crack pipe, but obviously the rhetoric, you know."

Watch:

This is not the first time Bolling has used racially charged rhetoric on Fox. Last June, on his Fox Business show, Bolling teased a segment about the White House hosting the president of Gabon by saying, "Guess who's coming to dinner? A dictator. Mr. Obama shares a laugh with one of Africa's kleptocrats. It's not the first time he's had a hoodlum in the hizzouse." He began the segment itself by saying, in part, "So what's with all the hoods in the hizzy?" He later issued a brief -- and dishonest -- apology for the segment.

In May 2011, Bolling claimed Obama was "chugging a few 40s" instead of responding to devastating tornadoes in Joplin, Missouri. Bolling later tried to walk back his "chugging 40s" comment by pretending that he hadn't engaged in racially charged rhetoric and asserting that he "took some heat for saying Obama should have delayed his European bar crawl."

This morning's Politico Playbook reports that the National Rifle Association will again be featuring sometime rocker, Washington Times columnist, and NRA board member Ted Nugent in their voter registration campaign. 

In his 2010 spot for the group, the Nuge alternatively wielded an AR-variant rifle and a guitar and proclaimed himself "cocked, locked, and ready to rock, doc" before urging viewers to go to an NRA website to register to vote. 

In recent years, Nugent has drawn far more attention for his vicious and extreme rhetoric than he has for his music. This is apparently of concern to his publicist, who last year rejected an email interview with Media Matters after receiving our questions, several of which focused on those questionable comments.

The NRA, however, appears to have no problem associating with someone who called Barack Obama a "piece of shit" and Hillary Clinton a "two-bit whore," referred to the Muslim community as "rude and stupid," said "[i]f it was up to me, if you uttered the word 'gun control,' we'd put you in jail," and uses homophobic language. (Nor have those comments kept Nugent off of Fox News.)

Below, with assistance from our archive and that of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence's MeetTheNRA.org, Media Matters presents Nugent's top 10 most inflammatory, offensive, and extreme comments.

10. After The Tucson Shooting, "Conservatives Should Turn Up The Rhetoric." In the wake of last year's tragic mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that left six dead and 19 injured, including horrific injuries to then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), many condemned the sort of hateful, insurrectionist rhetoric that spurs on episodes of anti-government violence.

Nugent, on the other hand, used his Washington Times column to state that while "liberals and others who should know better are calling for political rhetoric to be toned down," he believes that "conservatives should turn up the rhetoric." He added that "[o]nly softheaded, feel-good fantasizers from the cult of denial could believe that toning down the political rhetoric will somehow keep lunatics from doing loony things." He went on to urge his readers to "[e]xpose, isolate and eliminate liberals and their fuzzy-headed policies" and to "do America a favor and crush liberalism."

Read the full entry ...

A little truth vigilantism could go a long way toward rejecting a pernicious myth that has poisoned the tax debate for more than three years.

On Monday, President Obama formally released his budget outline and renewed the debate over allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americas to expire on schedule. On cue, conservatives played the "small business" card, claiming that raising taxes on the rich would amount to "massive tax increases on small businesses."

While this knee-jerk attack is unsupported by evidence, it is fully supported by the media's silent acquiescence.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner told the Washington Post that Obama's proposed budget would levy "massive tax increases on small business." House Majority leader Eric Cantor told the Associated Press that Obama's budget "calls for massive tax increases on hardworking families and small businesses." On CNN, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) savaged the president's budget for supposedly "raising taxes on small businesses and job creators." 

None of these claims were challenged.

Read the full entry ...

Fox & Friends has been struggling recently with two things: the improving economic indicators and President Obama's rising approval ratings. This morning, for example, the show hosted Dick Morris to use a widely discredited line of attack in an attempt to cast doubt on the improving employment numbers. Later in the show, co-host Gretchen Carlson conceded that Obama's approval rating is increasing as a result of a growing economy, but immediately followed that by claiming "some people say" that the employment figures "are fabricated," a charge they have only begun discussing since unemployment has been dropping.

But nowhere has their attempt to spin poll numbers been so characterized by outright falsehoods as their attempt to claim Catholics overwhelmingly oppose Obama's recent mandate that health insurance companies cover women's reproductive health.

On this morning's show, for example, after Carlson suggested the administration was "fabricat[ing]" the employment numbers, co-host Brian Kilmeade replied, "You know, one thing that's not calculated into this is the Catholic vote, and the recent polls show that Catholics are just about 60 percent are against him, especially after what happened last week." Watch:

It's unclear why Kilmeade assumes national polling data wouldn't include Catholics, but one thing is certain: He is wrong about how Catholics are responding to the administration's contraception rule. 

Read the full entry ...

Touching down their private jets at the Palm Springs Airport late last month, and convening at a nearby golf resort in Indian Wells, California, for a secretive retreat, wealthy conservative donors met again under the aegis of David and Charles Koch to plot the best way to pool their fortunes and defeat President Obama in November.

The high-priced Koch confabs have become a biannual ritual among Obama's super-rich foes. Operating in a post-Citizen United environment where there is no limit on how much money billionaires and their anonymous friends can spend financing negative campaign ads, the high-priced activists have signed up for the Koch War on Obama. 

The battle is not a secret. The New Yorker spelled it out right in the headline of a 2010 profile, noting how the brothers were "waging a war against Obama." And a very expensive war it is. As Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, told The New Yorker, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart." 

Along with the entire Fox News enterprise, the Koch brothers became integral parts of the permanent conservative campaign to delegitimize Obama right from the inception of his presidency and to mercilessly demonize him as an enemy of liberty.  (The wealthy duo bankrolled the "grassroots" Tea Party movement.) 

In other words, the Kochs are players. They are very big players who are in the public arena and have committed to raising another $100-200 million before Election Day to defeat Obama.

But Fox News has a message for anyone who dares question the Koch brother: Back off!

Fox doesn't think it's fair to talk about the Kochs and their campaign to defeat Obama, let alone criticize it. In fact, Fox News has been breaking out the smelling salts recently because some Democrats, and even members of the administration, have had the audacity to push back against the Kochs and their massive get-Obama crusade.  

Fox News will not stand idly by and witness that kind of bullying. Instead, the channel's talkers have been loudly braying about how the Kochs are merely "law-abiding" "private citizens" and ought to be left alone. Fox News' hand-wringing pundits fall to pieces when faced with the plight of the poor Koch bothers who are being "demonized" and silenced while Obama slots them onto a Nixonian "enemies list".  

Give me a break.

Once again, conservatives love a political brawl. They just don't like it when the other guys hit back.

Read the full entry ...

Fox Business announced last week that it is ending its current prime-time lineup, meaning that Eric Bolling's show Follow the Money will soon reach its conclusion. On Monday, perhaps in anticipation of the end, Bolling delivered in one three-minute period a stream of the casual slander and glib repetition of falsehoods that have defined the program.

Bolling began by suggesting that President Obama is a traitor. Bolling said, "President Obama, when he was campaigner Obama, Senator Obama, said the debt increase under President Bush was, quote, 'unpatriotic.' In three years, he's exceeded eight years' worth of Bush debt, meaning President Obama. So if Bush was unpatriotic, can't we kind of conclude that President Obama is treasonous?"

His guest, Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers, declined to participate in his "name-calling" and said that President Bush had spent money with "no clear purpose," using the Iraq war as an example.

Bolling responded by repeating one the most discredited right-wing myths of the past decade: the completely debunked claim that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were connected to the attacks of 9/11.

Read the full entry ...

Once again, a scientist has had to correct a Fox News distortion after the network's flagship nightly news program misrepresented a study to claim "the Earth's polar ice is melting less than previously thought." Dr. John Wahr, who helped lead the research, said via email that Fox's coverage is "misleading" and "inaccurate."

The research from the University of Colorado Boulder -- the "first comprehensive satellite study of the contribution of the world's melting glaciers and ice caps to global sea level rise" -- found that the land ice shrunk by nearly 150 billion tons every year between 2003-2010 (mostly from Greenland and Antarctica), adding 12 millimeters to sea level rise.

While the study found that glaciers in the Himalayan region were melting less than ground-based estimates had indicated, Professor Wahr said "our estimate of polar ice loss is roughly the same as previous estimates," contrary to Fox News' report. Wahr observed that Fox seemed to believe that the Himalayas are located at the Earth's poles. They are not.

Speaking to The Guardian last week, Wahr said: "Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year ... People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before." But somehow Fox came up with this:

BRET BAIER (host): Worried about polar ice melting? You may not be after a quick break.

Previously:

Fox's Flagship News Show Performs 5-Year Dance Around Greenland Ice Loss

An October Gallup poll on gun violence prevention that media outlets used to falsely claim that "support for gun control" had plummeted is still in use, with Patrick Kerkstra's op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer serving as the latest example.

Kerstra acknowledges that to him, "guns represent a plague, not protection," and says he admires the efforts of the gun violence prevention group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and its chairman, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But Kerstra concludes that "new gun-control legislation is, for now at least, a nonstarter, saying that the arguments of gun lobby advocates "are winning." He cites as evidence the Gallup poll, writing of Bloomberg:

In the short term, though, his agenda has no shot. According to an October Gallup poll, only 26 percent of Americans favor a handgun ban. More stunning is the finding that only 43 percent favored outlawing "assault rifles." Good luck, Mayor Bloomberg.

A couple of decades ago, those polling numbers were altogether different. In 1991, 60 percent of respondents told Gallup that handguns ought to be banned, and 78 percent favored more stringent controls.

As we've noted, using the percent of American who favor a handgun ban as a proxy for whether they support gun violence prevention measures is inaccurate. The same poll found that 87 percent of respondents want the laws covering the sales of firearms either kept as they are now or made stricter, demonstrating broad national support for gun control. Moreover, Mayors Against Illegal Guns itself doesn't support a handgun ban, which is in any case is not an active issue after handgun bans were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

It's also worth pointing out that other polls conducted last year showed strong support for banning assault weapons, as well as for an array of other measures to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

It is not public opinion but the efforts of the gun lobby, in particular the National Rifle Association, to intimidate lawmakers that has prevented the passage of sensible gun violence prevention legislation. But as new research from the American Prospect's Paul Waldman shows, "the NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections" and "the power of the NRA's endorsement is largely a myth."

This post was updated on February 15 to include further reaction to Trotta's remarks.

Fox News contributor Liz Trotta is drawing strong criticism for her remarks on sexual assault in the military, including from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), and a veterans group who called on Trotta to apologize.

During a Fox News segment on Sunday about new rules regarding women in the military, Trotta reacted to a Pentagon report showing a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults since 2006 by stating: "Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact."

Trotta also attacked the Department of Defense for increasing funding for support programs for victims of sexual assault. Trotta remarked, "the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. ... you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much." When Fox News anchor Eric Shawn said that "many would say that they need to be protected," Trotta replied: "That's funny, I thought the mission of the" armed forces "was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war."

Fox News did not respond to a request for comment about the remarks. 

"Contrary to Trotta's comments, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is not in the job description of a US Service Member," said Rep. Jackie Speier in a statement to Media Matters. "It is shameful for anyone to assert that the military does not have an obligation to protect its troops and it is abhorrent that a journalist would spin the Pentagon's statistics about rape and sexual assault in a way that suggests these crimes are normal or acceptable."  

Rep. Niki Tsongas said in a statement:

"The statements made by Ms. Trotta over the weekend are deplorable. They are an affront to our brave men and women in uniform who are serving, fighting, and dying for our country and its principles of equal treatment under the law for all Americans. The Pentagon rightly recognizes that the protections for our servicemembers must improve and that sexual assault within the ranks must not be tolerated."

Mother Jones national security reporter Adam Weinstein, who served in the Navy, blasted Trotta for suggesting "that women who defend this country should expect to get raped" and that military men "are monsters who can't stop themselves from raping women in close proximity, and shouldn't be expected to." On Time.com, author and Army veteran Donna McAleer wrote an opinion piece rebutting Trotta. Steve Benen, a producer and blogger for MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, wrote: "It's hard to even comprehend such a twisted perspective. ... That anyone would find such attitudes acceptable is just stunning."

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center said in a statement that it "is saddened by" the remarks:

"The National Sexual Violence Resource Center is saddened by recent comments by Fox News contributor Liz Trotta about sexual assault in the military. Contrary to Ms. Trotta's viewpoint, this is not just a 'feminist' issue. It is a human rights issue. Sexual  violence, including rape, impacts men, women and children across the life span. No one should 'expect' to be raped. Our CEO, Delilah Rumburg, served on the Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, and is aware of the work needed to strengthen prevention and response initiatives within the military. Our organization has several resources available to help educate the media and individuals, such as Ms. Trotta, about sexual violence and how it affects individual soldiers, families and their communities."

VetPAC, a political group that supports veterans running for office, released the following to Media Matters strongly condemning the "inappropriate comments" and requesting an apology:

Read the full entry ...

In the media storm surrounding TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, news outlets have largely focused on the employment impacts of the project, often parroting discredited industry statistics in the process. But jobs are only a part of the story.  A review of recent testimonies, tax records and local news reports shows that, on many other important issues at stake, TransCanada has been advertising one thing to its stakeholders and delivering another. What follows is a list of stories that many national news outlets missed:

1. TransCanada Used Aggressive Tactics With Landowners. TransCanada touts a commitment to "treating all landowners who may be affected by our project honestly, fairly and with mutual respect." But while the permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline was still pending, TransCanada sent letters to landowners along the pipeline route threatening to use eminent domain to seize their land if they did not agree to sign easements within 30 days. Landowners reportedly found this approach to be "very intimidating" and felt "bullied" by TransCanada. The Nebraska Farmers Union has repeatedly spoken out against TransCanada's "less than ethical" tactics, and, according to The New York Times, East Texas landowners said "they had never seen a company behave as aggressively as has TransCanada." Additionally a U.S. government official called the use of eminent domain "presumptuous" because the pipeline had not yet been approved. This story has been reported by the local press but largely ignored by the national media.  

2. TransCanada Didn't Deliver On Previously Promised Tax Revenue. TransCanada has promised that Keystone XL will generate $5.2 billion in property tax revenue for the U.S. states located along its route. But the company made similar promises about the first leg of the Keystone pipeline, and 2010 tax records show that it failed to deliver. In its first year of operation, Keystone 1 generated less than half ($2.2 million) of the $5.5 million projected for Nebraska, and only a third ($2.9 million) of the estimated $9 million in state property taxes for South Dakota. In Kansas, TransCanada is exempt from property taxes for a decade, which will cost the state $50 million in public revenue, according to local officials.

Read the full entry ...

Conservative media are pushing for Israel or the United States to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, claiming that inaction will cause great harm to Israel. In doing so, however, they are ignoring questions about whether Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons at all and minimizing the dangers of war with Iran. 

In a February 6 Townhall.com piece, Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, senior fellows with the Family Research Council (FRC), argued that Israel should "strike [Iran] now" as its "very survival is on the line," adding, "As worrisome as an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might be, Iran with a nuclear weapon is infinitely more." They concluded: 

Today, surrounded by mortal enemies, with their backs to the wall, Israelis are told to take more "risks for peace" by a US. administration that is outraged by the sight of too many Jews in Jerusalem. 

If we wait until the Iranians have sunk their nuclear weapons deep into hardened bunkers it will be too late. The Obama administration will not act in time. Later, will be too late. 

Israel: Don't wait; hit the Iranian nuclear facilities now. The world will thank you for it. 

During the February 7 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said that "[t]here is a rise of Islamic extremism that is happening under [Obama's] watch, and he's not doing a thing," adding, "[h]e ought to be dropping bunker buster bombs on Iran's nuclear sites." 

On February 8, The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens appeared on Fox News' Happening Now to discuss his recent piece on whether Israel should bomb Iran. During the segment, Stephens said that "Israel should bomb Iran if it's going to strike decisively," adding: "If it's going to have a surgical attack that will set the Iranians back by six months or one year then the question becomes, What's the point of that? But if it's going to use a strike as a first stage in a broader program of regime change joined by the United States, then that's worthwhile." Stephens concluded the segment by saying: 

As the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak put it, Iran is now entering what he calls a zone of immunity. They will have too much material too deeply buried to be susceptible to an Israeli strike. And that window is closing for them. Unless they take advantage of this opportunity they will have to live with a nuclear Iran, which will be devastating for Israel's interest. 

And on the February 12 edition of Fox News' America's News Headquarters, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said that "if we don't become very serious and convince the Iranians that we will use significant military force to stop them they're going to just keep moving straight ahead," adding, "I think we're going to have to be prepared to use military force." He concluded: 

I want this administration to get realistic and get tough about Iran. Stop this nonsense about talking to them, which goes back to when he was debating Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton told him to his face that he's naïve. Stop it. Cut it out, Mr. President. They don't want to talk to you. You know what they want to hear from you? That you're tough. That you are capable of attacking them if that is necessary and that you're not going to sit there and labor over it. That you are willing to do it if that is necessary to stop them from becoming a nuclear power. And he should say to them, in the toughest language he can come up with, there's no way on earth I'm going to let you become a nuclear power. It's just too darn dangerous. 

There are several things wrong here. 

Read the full entry ...

During a segment about new rules regarding women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta attacked the Department of Defense for increasing spending on support programs for victims of sexual assault. Trotta also reacted to a Pentagon report showing a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults since 2006 by stating: "Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact."

Trotta began by claiming "we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time" and later added that feminists "have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. ... you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much."

When Fox News anchor Eric Shawn said that "many would say that they need to be protected," Trotta replied: "That's funny, I thought the mission of the" armed forces "was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war."

Read the full entry ...