As part of his ongoing rant against progressives, Glenn Beck argued on his Fox News show tonight that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was a progressive perversion of the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it. Beck stated that the creation of the Federal Reserve System "flew right in the face of our Founders" because Thomas Jefferson "argued that the central bank was, quoting, 'one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and forms of our Constitution,' end quote."
While Jefferson did oppose the creation of the First Bank of the United States -- the nation's first central bank -- Alexander Hamilton, another Founder and author of many of the Federalist Papers, strongly supported the bank and wrote an opinion declaring the bank to be within the federal government's constitutional powers. Congress passed the statute creating the bank in 1791, and George Washington signed the statute into law, after considering both Hamilton and Jefferson's views.
The Second Bank of the United States was created during the presidency of James Madison -- another Founder and Federalist Papers author. Although Madison opposed the creation of the first bank, he changed his mind as president and signed the legislation creating the second bank. The constitutionality of the bank was upheld by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
Media Matters for America has previously documented Beck's false statements about the Federal Reserve System.
As part of his thoroughly ahistorical and lunatic smear-job tonight against the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, Beck and his panel of "experts" attacked progressives for, in his view, rewriting history for their own purposes:
BECK: [Woodrow Wilson] also was a guy who helped change history. If I'm not mistaken it was during his administration that a group of professors, I think from Columbia, progressive professors, got together and said "You know what? Our founders were racist white people. What do you say?" And they decided to really make progress we had to detach from the history that we had and make progress from that. Can you tell that story?
LARRY SCHWEIKART, HISTORIAN: History becomes a tool for the present to affect the future. It no longer becomes a means of looking at the past, but it becomes an active weapon to change society.
Stupid? Yes. But useful, in that it set up one of Beck's other guests to accidentally expose Beck's ridiculous hypocrisy later in the program. As the show ended, Beck bemoaned the fact that documents like the Federalist Papers are somewhat inaccessible in the way that they were written:
BECK: You know what the problem is, honestly? I think guys like you, I think we need really smart people that can take the Federalist Papers and rewrite them for the common man. Rewrite them, change the language. I read George Washington's farewell address, which is brilliant, but I don't know how anybody listened to these guys back then, because it's really difficult. You know what I mean? If we rewrite these things in common language people can access them again a lot easier.
BURTON FOLSOM JR., HISTORIAN: Of course, that's what the progressives tried to do, rewrite them so that the common man could understand them.
BECK: [mockingly] It's just that the common people are so stupid, you know. We'll be back. Final thoughts in just a second.
So how great is this? Beck, after attacking progressives for rewriting history for their own purposes, advocates that conservatives rewrite history for their own purposes, and gets called out by his own guest. Caught in an obvious bit of hypocrisy, he shifts to mocking progressives for thinking the "common people are so stupid," even though not five seconds earlier he was saying that the language of the Founding Fathers was too complicated for the common man to understand.
And let's not forget that the last time Beck attempted to rewrite a founding document to make it more accessible to the masses, he ended up inadvertently endorsing a Constitutional provision that protected the slave trade.
This is really all you need to know about Beck's treatment of history -- hypocritical, factually vacant, and an expression of his own cynical view of the subject.
The American Seniors Association, which bills itself "as the conservative alternative to the AARP," is using the Fox News brand to promote and sell tickets for an upcoming benefit.
On its website, ASA is running the headline, "Please Join Fox News Commentator," which links to a press release announcing that Fox News "political analyst" Dick Morris will appear at a $125 - $1,000 fundraiser for the conservative group. This is not the first time that Morris has helped fundraise for conservative causes or against Democrats.
ASA does not say whether Morris is receiving a speaking fee. One agency lists Morris' speaking fee within the range of $20,000 to $25,000, while another lists $15,000 to $25,000. In December 2008, Morris headlined a fundraising luncheon for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania; FEC records show that the state party gave a $10,000 "Party Fundraiser - Speaker Fee" to Triangulation Strategies, a group affiliated with Morris.
In addition to agreeing to appear at ASA's fundraiser, Morris has promoted ASA and touted the benefits of its membership on-air. From Hannity on August 31, 2009:
HANNITY: You're really focused in on this, because you brought it up now a number of times. Do you really think that this debate is going to be won or lost based on the elderly in this country? And now here's what we know. We know that, in droves, people are leaving the AARP.
HANNITY: There's another alternative, more conservative group that they're going to.
MORRIS: The American Seniors Association.
HANNITY: American Seniors Association.
MORRIS: And AmericanSeniorsAssociation.com. I sent out an e-mailing from my list promoting that. The guy named Barton. Stuart Barton was the head of it.
HANNITY: You know what's.
MORRIS: And they offer health insurance, by the way. You don't have to give that up.
Morris' syndicated column also urged readers to "join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact [ASA email address]." Given his history, it's certainly fair to wonder whether these promotions by Morris were motivated by outside financial incentives.
Previously, Morris, without any apparent objection from Fox News bosses, repeatedly urged Fox viewers to visit his website to help pay for ads against Democrats and Democratic efforts; and during the 2008 election cycle, Morris promoted and asked viewers to donate to GOPTrust.com without disclosing that the organization paid $24,000 to a company apparently connected to Morris.
The ethics of media figures receiving speaking fees has been debated and discussed for years, but at least one Fox News host doesn't believe in paid speaking engagements because of questions about conflicts of interest. On the Record host Greta Van Susteren emailed Harpers in June of 2008 that she doesn't accept speaking fees "because I fear conflicts (you and I probably think a lot alike about this) and I get paid well at my job anyway. I would like all journalists to list monthly online where they have given speeches and for what amounts of money."
Yet Van Susteren, like her bosses at Fox News, has repeatedly allowed Morris to tout his conflict-of-interest promotions about "how to fight" Democratic efforts.
Morris may argue that he's not a journalist, and instead is a "political analyst" or commentator who's just paid to give his opinions. But that distinction reportedly didn't matter to Fox News executives with fellow employee Mike Huckabee, who reportedly was asked to stop plugging his website "on the air after learning that it linked to his political action committee, which the network deemed a conflict of interest." For some reason, that ban hasn't extended to Morris.
Eighty 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 of white people." Here are his January 29 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Discussing President Obama's Q and A at the GOP House Issues Conference, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder stated on his Twitter feed:
As President, George W. Bush waged war on PBS. Kenneth Tomlinson, who Bush appointed to chair the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, launched a campaign to tilt PBS to the right, including an inept "study" that attempted to demonstrate PBS's alleged leftward tilt by labeling Republican Senator Charles Grassley a "liberal." And Bush wanted to slash funding for public broadcasting.
Now comes the announcement that PBS will air a new television series hosted by the Executive Director of the George W. Bush institute:
James K. Glassman, Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute, is the host of a a new half-hour television series on ideas and their consequences which will air on public television stations and non-commercial cable stations nationwide.
"Our goal with this program is to explore how new ideas, research and technologies affect our world with a balanced panel of the best thinkers we can find," says Glassman.
"For example," explains Glassman, in addition to the "twitter revolution" in Iran, "we've already taped programs that look at what the latest research on pay-for-performance for teachers might mean for public education. We're planning programs on global health, domestic economic policy, and the future of journalism, just to name a few of the topics we hope to address."
Glassman served in Bush's State Department, but he may be best-known as the author of Dow 36,000, a 1999 book that predicted the stock market, then at about 10,000, would reach 36,000 within three to five years. Three years later, the Dow was at 7,200.
I'm sure those who followed Glassman's 1999 guidance that "Stocks are in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground -- to the neighborhood of 36,000" can't wait to see what he as to say about "ideas and their consequences."
As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks." I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office - the people's office - to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.
We really wish this wasn't a semi-occasional feature, because we generally admire their work. But from time to time the folks over at PolitiFact seem to have a hard time grasping simple facts. Last December they rushed to the defense of Karl Rove after he made a patently false claim about Obama's polling numbers. And this week PolitiFact botches the issue of whether Obama was accurate when he suggested in the SOTU that a recent SCOTUS ruling (i.e. United Citizen v. FEC) could open the doors to foreign campaign donations.
Here's what Obama said at the SOTU:
Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
It was at that point, of course, that Justice Samuel Alito was seen reacting to Obama's comments just feet away and mouthing "Not true"; a rather remarkable breach of protocol for a Justice. Alito's claim was then seized upon by the right-wing Noise Machine which announced unequivocally that Obama had "lied" about the United Citizen case.
Which means yeah, it's pretty important to figure out if Obama was accurate about the recent SCOTUS ruling. PolitiFact claims Obama's comments during the SOTU were "barely true." But after reading the dubious analysis, its clear that what PolitiFact did was fact-check something Obama didn't say, which is never helpful.
Again, here's what Obama did say:
I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.
But rather than dealing with that comment, which is based on what Obama thinks might be the ramifications from Citizens United, PolitiFact pretends Obama made some sort of sweeping, definitive legal claim.
Here's a key graph from PolitiFact. Just try to square the highlighted sections with the fact that it declared that Obama's SOTU comment was "barely true":
Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion.
Huh? Legal experts confirmed that Obama's point was accurate and that foreign companies could start spending money on U.S. elections, but PolitiFact determined that Obama's point was "barely true?" That, of course, makes no sense.
Here's where PolitiFact claims Obama messed up:
But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.
Are you serious? The SCOTUS just issued a ruling. Obama expressed his concern -- his opinion -- that the ruling would open the door to foreign corporation campaign donations. But PolitiFact insisted Obama's claim was "barely true" because Obama suggested "the issue is settled law." Um, where exactly did Obama make that suggestion? Because he certainly didn't make that suggestion in the SOTU, which is what PolitiFact is supposed to be fact-checking.
In other words, PolitiFact is scolding Obama for something he didn't say.
And here's the part where PolitiFact quotes legal scholars -- scholars who do nothing to back up the "barely true" claim:
"Some people think that Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United logically leads there," said Robert Kelner, who chairs the election and political law practice group at the law firm Covington & Burling. "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We don't know for sure."
Brett Kappel, a political law specialist with the law firm Arent Fox, said the Citizens United opinion "certainly could be read as declaring this provision unconstitutional, so I'd have to say the president's interpretation is correct -- but we won't really know for sure until a court rules on the issue."
Are you following? Obama said he "believes" the ruling will allow foreign corporations to spend on U.S. elections. And guess what? So do lots of legal scholars. But because the one-week old case hasn't been tested in court and because it's not settled law, PolitiFact claims Obama oversold the point. (It's "barely true!") Even though, all Obama did was say what he "believes" might happen.
This is really just weak stuff for a fact-checking org.
UPDATED: From blogger and respected constitutional law attorney Glenn Greenwald:
While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they're well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being "false" (e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that; moreover, it's certainly fair to argue, as Obama did, that the Court majority tossed aside a century of judicial precedent).