Today, as guest-host for Your World with Neil Cavuto, Bolling did a segment with Young America's Foundation's Kate Obenshain attacking gender wage equality legislation. Senate Democrats are advocating for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation designed to combat gender wage discrimination suffered by women in the workplace.

Rather than discuss the merits of the legislation, Bolling and Obenshain spent most of their time attacking the motives of the senators and members of the Obama administration championing the legislation.

The closest they came to a substantive discussion of the need for pay equity legislation was mentioning a Rasmussen Reports poll that found that 73 percent of employed adults found that their own workplace is "free of gender discrimination."

Even leaving aside the issue of whether asking people whether there is gender discrimination in their own workplace has anything to do with whether people believe that employment discrimination exists in the country as a whole, why does it matter what polling says? What really matters is whether there is a wage gap. And on that subject, the data is clear.

Data from the U.S. Census shows that women's earnings represent only 77 percent of what men earn. This pay gap extends across all backgrounds, ages and levels of achievement, as demonstrated by the American Association of University Women. Even accounting for industry, occupation, and a plethora of other factors, research has indicated a persistent discrepancy between wages.

Furthermore, even Bolling's and Obenshain's attempt to attack the people championing workplace equity is flawed. Obenshain's claim that Senate Democrats do not practice the pay equity they preach has already been debunked. And her claim that Obama's economic policies have disproportionately impacted women negatively is equally flawed. 

Today, Fox's Eric Bolling hyped legislation that would deny tax credits to families with American citizen children and misrepresented the position of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the issue.

There have been some reports of people fraudulently claiming the tax credit based on children who do not live in the United States. But rather than pushing for a solution to the fraud, Bolling hyped legislation that would stop all undocumented immigrant parents from claiming any portion of the tax credit for their children, even if those children are American citizens.

Undocumented immigrants are required to pay federal income taxes, just as citizens and other immigrants must do. Federal tax law currently allows families that earn below a certain income level to take a Child Tax Credit for each citizen or resident alien child in the family, and at some income levels, the tax credit is refundable, meaning that some taxpayers claiming the Child Tax Credit will receive a refund check from the government that is greater than the amount of tax that was withheld from their paychecks.

Undocumented immigrants also can -- and often do -- have U.S. citizen children. This is due to the fact that the Constitution states that all people born in the United States are automatically entitled to citizenship regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

The legislation at issue, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), would require anyone claiming the Child Tax Credit to have a valid Social Security number, which is unavailable to undocumented immigrants. It contains no exception for immigrants with American citizen children. And it blocks undocumented immigrants from claiming any part of the Child Tax Credit, not merely the part that is refundable.

During the segment, Bolling falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who recently objected to Vitter's attempt to have the Senate pass the bill by unanimous consent, "wants to block efforts" to make it illegal for people to commit Child Tax Credit fraud.

In fact, Reid actually noted that the tax code is already very clear that "the child tax credit is not available for children living outside the United States" and that the legislation in question "takes a sledgehammer to a problem that deserves some very fine tuning and a scalpel." Reid added that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is working with the IRS "to determine if its procedures are strong enough to stop" Child Tax Credit fraud, and said that if the procedures are not strong enough, "then it is up to Congress to plug any loopholes that may exist." 

Read the full entry ...

Back in 2006, Rush Limbaugh responded to an ad that actor Michael J. Fox had made, in which he endorsed Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill over her support for embryonic stem cell research, by accusing him of "exaggerating the effects of [Parkinson's] disease." Limbaugh also claimed "either he didn't take his medication or he's acting," mimicked Fox's tremors, and falsely accused the actor of doing ads only for Democrats. Limbaugh later apologized -- then suggested Fox had deliberately taken too much medication to induce the tremors displayed in the ad.

Limbaugh waded back into that controversy again on his May 24 radio show -- this time by getting Fox's latest remarks wrong and minimizing his own role in attacking Fox in 2006.

Limbaugh cited an article at the anti-abortion website LifeNews to claim that Fox, in Limbaugh's words, "is admitting that stem cells -- nothing to him. Right here, I have it, LifeNews.com, Michael J. Fox admits embryonic stem cells likely will not cure him." Limbaugh insisted that this proves his earlier claim that embryonic stem cell research "was not even about curing Parkinson's or Alzheimers" but "a way to promote abortion."

In fact, not only did Fox not specifically reference embryonic stem cell research in his recent comments -- adult stem cells are a different avenue of research -- but he didn't say that there was "nothing" to it. Fox said that stem cell research is "part of a broad portfolio of things that we look at," other avenues of research have become "as much or more promising," and that he's "glad" to have promoted stem cell research in the face of those who tried to shut it down for "ideological reasons."

Read the full entry ...

Earlier this month, Fairleigh Dickinson University released a PublicMind survey finding that "NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people's current events knowledge. ... the study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News."

Fox News' public relations department reacted characteristically to the findings. Instead of critiquing the survey on its merits, Fox lashed out at the "weak academic program" at FDU's undergraduate school, reportedly telling the Hollywood Reporter:

This month, FDU released another of its PublicMind polls touting that "this nationwide survey confirms initial findings" of ill-informed FNC viewers, and an FNC spokesperson blasted the findings and turned the tables on the university, pointing out that its own students don't exactly measure up academically. (FDU was No. 585 on a Forbes ranking of 650 U.S. colleges.)

"Considering FDU's undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country," said the FNC spokesperson, "we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling - their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed."

Fairleigh Dickinson issued a statement to Media Matters calling Fox News' attack "unfortunate" and "unfounded":

Read the full entry ...

The Wall Street Journal published today a brief commentary from venture capitalist Tom Perkins on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force's recent recommendation that the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer be abandoned. Leaning on a healthy dose of falsehood and ignorance, Perkins dubbed the USPSTF (which he misidentified as the "U.S. Preventative Health Service") a "death panel," thus resurrecting the Sarah Palin-born fantasy of cost-conscious passive euthanasia of the elderly.

According to Perkins, the USPSTF recommendation "can rather simply be summed up: Most men eventually get prostate cancer, but most don't die from it; those who do are mostly over 75 years of age, so that ends their continuing burden on the public purse." This is categorically false. The USPSTF recommendation is focused exclusively on the effectiveness of the treatment and the clinical benefits and/or harms. They state right at the outset: "The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment."

More to the point, a USPSTF recommendation is exactly that: a recommendation. It's non-binding and has no effect on public policy unless policymakers embrace it. And according to CQ HealthBeat, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services say that PSA testing will still be covered by Medicare. Sebelius previously rejected a 2009 USPSTF recommendation on mammography.

Wrapping up his commentary, Perkins wrote:

It's hard to avoid a political aside, so I won't try. A healthy market-driven free economy leads to innovation and the development of breakthroughs, like the PSA test. A highly taxed and highly regulated economy leads to "Death Panels," like the U.S. Preventative Health Service.

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to when the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force was established? 1984. During the lightly taxed and lightly regulated economy of Ronald Reagan.

The New York Post reported this morning that a public elementary school in New York City will require its students to learn Arabic. The story describes the school is "a so-called 'choice' school and no kids, even those living nearby, are forced to attend it," and even quotes a student and parents that are very supportive of the program. Nonetheless, right-wing media figures are already responding to this reporting with their usual anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry.

Right-wing blogger and anti-Muslim hate group leader (and Fox News regular) Pamela Geller described the Arabic language program as "Islamic supremacism on the march in the public square," and suggested that it would be a "public school madrassah."

Right-wing author Matthew Vadum responded to the news that Arabic would be taught at a public school by making a reference to explosives:

And right-wing blogger Andrea Ryan of Gateway Pundit had this to say:

Now, they want our children be able to read the Quran, listen to the draconian precepts of sharia, and watch Al Jazeera inveigh against Christianity, democracy, equality, and freedom in its native Arabic language.  When Communism aimed its missiles and armies at our nation President Reagan didn't fold and force our children to learn Russian.

Leave it to the Liberals to try to completely destroy all that is good about our culture and turn it into something distorted, ugly, and dangerous.

Far from being "dangerous," learning Arabic is actually important for our national security. In remarks to a January 2006 summit of U.S. university presidents, George W. Bush introduced a language initiative to teach students -- starting in Kindergarten -- languages important to national security, such as Arabic:

[O]ne of the reasons why the Secretary of Defense is here. He wants his young soldiers who are the front lines of finding these killers to be able to speak their language and be able to listen to the people in the communities in which they live. That makes sense, doesn't it, to have a language-proficient military -- to have people that go into the far reaches of this world and be able to communicate in the villages and towns and rural areas and urban centers, to protect the American people.

We need intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu knows what they're talking about. That's what we need. We need diplomats -- when we send them out to help us convince governments that we've got to join together and fight these terrorists who want to destroy life and promote an ideology that is so backwards it's hard to believe. These diplomats need to speak that language.

So our short-term strategy is to stay on the offense, and we've got to give our troops, our intelligence officers, our diplomats all the tools necessary to succeed. That's what people in this country expect of our government. They expect us to be wise about how we use our resources, and a good use of resources is to promote this language initiative in K through 12, in our universities. And a good use of resources is to encourage foreign language speakers from important regions of the world to come here and teach us how to speak their language.

You're going to hear a lot about the specifics of the program. What I'm trying to suggest to you that this program is a part of a strategic goal, and that is to protect this country in the short-term and protect it in the long-term by spreading freedom.

Read the full entry ...

UPDATE: Sheppard has removed the offending image and added the following text:

Readers are advised that the original article included a doctored picture of Obama and others that turned out to have anti-Semitic imagery that I didn't notice when I incorporated it into the piece. Those familiar with my work know that's not something I would intentionally do. I apologize to anyone with better eyes than I have that noticed the imagery and was in any way offended.

The replacement image is one of the top Google Images results for the phrase "obama laughing," as is the original anti-Semitic illustration.

The Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog is using an anti-Semitic image depicting Jewish control and influence over the U.S. government to illustrate one of its posts. The entry, written by NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard, is accompanied by the following Photoshopped image:

Read the full entry ...

A May 23 Weekly Standard blog post highlighted by The Drudge Report attacked President Obama's economic record by listing the 30 months with the lowest employment-population ratio in the past 25 years and pointing out that all of them have occurred during Obama's administration. But by presenting the data -- pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website -- in list form, The Weekly Standard doesn't present the employment situation honestly. As the BLS data clearly show, the employment-population ratio was already on a steep decline that began in January 2008 under President Bush -- a year before Obama took office -- and that has since stabilized.

The Weekly Standard used the BLS statistics to claim that, in terms of the employment-population ratio, "over the past 25 years, the worst month under any other president has beaten the best month under Obama." Here is a portion of the list from The Weekly Standard, which continues in the same fashion:

1. (tie) July 2011, 58.2 percent, President Barack Obama
1. (tie) June 2011, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) November 2010, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) December 2009, 58.2 percent, Obama
5. (tie) August 2011, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) December 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama

But there's a reason that the BLS doesn't present its own data this way. Simply listing months with low employment-population ratios ignores trends in employment data. Instead of simply linking to the BLS website, The Weekly Standard changed the way the data was presented. If you follow The Weekly Standard's link to the BLS data, you find the following chart:

What the chart clearly shows - and that The Weekly Standard ignores -- is that the employment-population ratio was in the midst of a steep decline when Obama took office, caused by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The Weekly Standard correctly points out that previous administrations enjoyed an employment-population ratio in the 60s for years, but its dishonest presentation of the data ignores the clear fact that the forces leading to the low numbers began under the Bush administration.

The Law and Economics Center (LEC) at George Mason University School of Law is perhaps the one institution that brings together Charles Koch and Mickey Mouse. Koch's foundation, along with dozens of corporations, funds LEC. The Law and Economics Center, once labeled a "key ally" by the tobacco industry, organizes all-expenses-paid seminars for federal and state judges. LEC touted the location of one seminar as "sunny" and being known for its "great weather and proximity to Disneyland." At these seminars, the judges are exposed to a curriculum with a "free-market, anti-regulatory bent." As Fox News and other right-wing media conduct a ritualized freakout over the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals conference in Hawaii, the Law and Economic Center's activities, which shape how judges understand the law, as opposed to where they hold their meetings, deserve scrutiny.

Not much interesting can be said about the Ninth Circuit conference brouhaha. As authorized by a federal statute, the various federal judicial circuits routinely gather their judges and the lawyers who practice in their courts for panel discussions and other educational activities. They meet somewhere in the circuit. For example, the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, met earlier this month in Chicago. Similarly, Hawaii is part of the Ninth Circuit.

The Law and Economics Center's judicial programs are a different matter altogether. One judicial ethics watchdog has described it as "the nation's longest running and largest junketing program for federal judges." LEC was heavily involved in the tobacco industry's efforts to defeat cigarette litigation, and an internal Phillip Morris memo once listed it as one of the company's "Key Allies." Other tobacco companies also contributed to LEC, and Altria, the corporate successor to Phillip Morris, is a current donor. 

The Law and Economic Center has provided a solid return on investment for its corporate donors. It once boasted that many judges who participated in its programs reported that doing so "totally altered their frame of reference for cases involving economic issues." Puffery? Perhaps, but it is difficult to minimize one federal judge's frank confession that he based a ruling in an antitrust case on the ideas he was exposed to in an LEC seminar:

U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams attended a LEC seminar while presiding over a predatory pricing case. While he was attending the LEC seminar at the Key Biscayne Hotel in Miami, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $5 million which, under the law, he was bound to triple to $15 million. Instead, he returned from the seminar and overturned the jury's verdict. He later wrote a letter to LEC that read in part: "As a result of my better understanding of the concept of marginal costs, I have recently set aside a $15 million anti-trust verdict."

Read the full entry ...

The Daily Caller wants to give you a free gun. A free gun with the Bill of Rights inscribed on the slide, presumably so that not all of your patriotism has to go downrange.

These weapons are made by Jim Pontillo, the owner of FMK Firearms. In addition to making guns, Pontillo moonlights as a lunatic conservative writer. We pointed out yesterday that he's written a smattering of columns for Human Events, one of which extolled the patriotic ardor of modern-day secessionists. And it turns out that, until recently, Pontillo blogged enthusiastically at his website, ForMyKountry.com.

Pontillo's writing bears all the hallmarks of fringe right-wing craziness, to include:

Casual racism:

I am looking forward to [Obama's] inaugural address where the "coolest" "rock-star" Commander-In-Chief  we've ever had wows us all by doing a fly-by around the newly repainted "Black House" and lands softly at the podium using nothing but those big ears for the flight.

Carefully considered racism:

As for Obama, I cannot see how he can expect to get any kind of majority among white America when his most fervent supporters hate white America.

[...]

Barack Obama will do very nicely for himself as a politician who represents a narrow and prejudiced group, he'll make lots of money and probably enjoy a long life in public service, but he will never be President of the United States; that job requires he represent all Americans, not just the angry black ones.

For president, he's done.

Poorly considered defenses of the Confederacy:

The American character, from the pilgrims on, has been defined by a special reverence for individual independence and individual right.  Recalling the Civil War, the slave issue aside, it is natural to understand the Confederate rebellion.  A resistance to government power is integral to the American DNA.

Favorable comparisons of Arizona's SB 1070 to the attack on Fort Sumter:

Arizona's SB1070 is a preemptive strike; a warning to a despotic administration that the American people are only going to tolerate a limited amount of assault on their sovereignty, it is a precursor revealing dissatisfaction turning to action.

Whether or not SB1070 is proper or right is really not the point.  The question is...

Are Americans beginning to feel as intently in 2010 that its government has unjustly pushed them, as did the Confederate citizens of 1860?

Pontillo has also published some creepily bizarre stuff that transcends mere fringy-ness and is actually pretty alarming. Like his one-act play about the Virginia Tech massacre (written from the point of view of the murder weapon). And his belief that "we should send the U.S. Military down to Mexico, seize their oil fields, and confiscate the proceeds until the Mexican government changes its policy of encouraging their population to come here for work and send money home, all subsidized by American taxpayers."

This kind of conspiratorial and extremist thought permeates American gun culture, from small-time gun nuts like Pontillo to the highest levels of the NRA, and is enabled by the Daily Caller, which is handing out dangerous weapons just to get a little bump in traffic.

UPDATE: Slate's David Weigel asked Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson about Pontillo's column calling Arizona's SB 1070 "a warning to a despotic administration that the American people are only going to tolerate a limited amount of assault on their sovereignty." Carlson responded to Weigel, "A little rebellion once in a while isn't a bad thing."

UPDATE X2: Erik Wemple of the Washington Post contacted the Daily Caller about Pontillo's "racier opinions." The Caller responded: "All that's germane to the contest is that he's a fully licensed firearms manufacturer. If we were giving away iPads, the political views of Apple would also be irrelevant."

The Washington Free Beacon today reported that "Senate Democrats pay female staffers less than male staffers" and are running afoul of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides women more legal room to file pay discrimination claims against employers. However, the Free Beacon story refutes its own attack.

From the Free Beacon article:

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called "gender pay gap," urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday's press conference--Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)--three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

After highlighting the gender pay gaps of several other Democratic Senators, the Free Beacon threw cold water on its own claims:

Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.

While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beacon analysis.

That previous analysis showed that the gender pay gap for the White House is smaller than in the overall economy. The Free Beacon is telling its readers that the gender pay gap among Senate Democratic staffers is even smaller than that.

The Free Beacon then went even further in undermining their own story:

Read the full entry ...

UPDATE: In a subsequent post on her blog, Bruce wrote that she was being snarky and sarcastic in her tweet and defended Fox for being "willing to hire an openly gay women before anyone else in television." She added that she had been told she would never guest host O'Reilly because of her sexual orientation by "a friend of mine" and that she has "never even asked to host the Factor (or any other show at Fox), and no one at Fox ever told me I couldn't." 

ORIGINAL POST: 

Longtime Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce tweeted yesterday that she's been told she'll never guest host The O'Reilly Factor because she's gay. Bruce did not specify whether she had received that message from the network's personnel, but replied favorably to a fan who responded to her tweet by criticizing the network.

Bruce is a conservative radio show host who regularly appears on The O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly. According to Nexis, Bruce most recently appeared on the program's April 6 broadcast with guest host Juan Williams.

Bruce is openly gay, a fact she's noted on The O'Reilly Factor. A biography posted on WMAL, which carried her radio show (the program now streams "exclusively at TalkStreamLive"), states that when her radio show "debuted in Los Angeles in 1993, she was the first openly gay woman in the country to host a show on a mainstream talk radio station."

Bruce's comments came in response to a follower who told her she needs "to fill in for O'Reilly sometime." Bruce replied: "I'd love to fill in for O'Reilly, but I've been told it will never happen because I'm gay. Go figure..."

Several followers responded to Bruce's tweet with criticism of Fox. One follower tweeted: "Tammy, so sorry to hear that! You've always been an intelligent and thoughtful commentator. Bad on Fox :-)" Bruce replied: "Thanks @gutsy9 I appreciate the support :)"

Messages to Bruce seeking clarification and comment were not returned. Fox News also did not return a request for comment by posting time. 

Today on Fox News' The Five, host Bob Beckel asserted that co-host Eric Bolling has frequently attacked President Obama, to which Bolling responded: "Barack Obama's never been attacked by Eric Bolling. Eric Bolling attacks Barack Obama's ideology, his politics, and his turning America into a socialist state." 

That's an amazing failure of memory on Bolling's part given his repeated personal attacks on Obama.

To refresh Bolling's memory on his record of personal attacks, here's a trip down memory lane.

Bolling Hyped Conspiracy Theories That Questioned Obama's Birth Certificate: 

For more examples of Eric Bolling promoting birther conspiracies, click here

Bolling Falsely Claimed That Obama Had Been A Drug Dealer:

(Bolling later wrote on his Twitter feed: "Said yesterday that I thought the President had admitted to buying or selling drugs. I was wrong. And I apologize to him for my mistake")

Bolling Cast Doubt On Obama's Religion:

Bolling Suggested That Obama Drinks Too Much:

From Bolling's Twitter feed

For more examples of Eric Bolling attacking Obama for drinking too much, click here

Read the full entry ...

Two days after lending credence to birther conspiracy theories, Bret Baier, host of Fox News' flagship "straight news" program, Special Report, acknowledged today that the White House released President Obama's long-form birth certificate in April 2011. 

On Monday's edition of Special Report, Baier reported that Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had threatened to remove Obama from the Arizona presidential ballot without mentioning that Obama made his birth certificate public four years ago, and that, as FactCheck.org has noted, it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." During that segment on Monday's show, Baier also did not mention that, amid a relentless birther attack by Fox, the White House also released Obama's long-form birth certificate. 

Baier drew fire from journalism veterans and ethics experts for having failed to note that birther conspiracy theories were meritless, with one experienced news person calling the report "a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility." 

Tonight, Baier updated the story, reporting that Bennett is now satisfied that Obama was born in the United States and has withdrawn his threat to kick Obama off the ballot and noting that "last April, the White House released his long-form birth certificate." 

From Special Report: 

BAIER: Arizona's Secretary of State says the case is closed in the birth certificate kerfuffle stemming from his request that Hawaii provide additional verification President Obama was in fact born there. 

As we have reported, Aloha state officials have repeatedly confirmed President Obama's birth in the state, and last April, the White House released his long-form birth certificate. 

Today, Secretary of State Ken Bennett in Arizona explained he only pursued the issue on behalf of constituent requests, adding, quote, Hawaiian officials 'complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.' Bennett said Tuesday, if his actions embarrassed the state of Arizona he was sorry.

In a statement regarding an Obama administration policy that ensures women have access to insurance coverage for birth control while accommodating employers who object to providing birth control, Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and Fox News contributor, stated:

Any national media outlet that fails to report the obvious raping of our First Amendment rights by this Health and Human Service mandate, is trumpeting either woeful incompetence or shameless bias.

Morris' comment was reported by the Media Research Center, which complained about media coverage of a lawsuit filed by various organizations against the contraception coverage policy.

As a reminder, President Obama's contraception coverage policy has the support of a wide variety of Catholic institutions as well as a majority of American Catholics.

Previously:

Father Morris Pushes "Federal Funding For Abortion" Falsehood To Suggest Obama Is Untrustworthy

Fox Now Attacking Obama's Reasons For Becoming A Christian

Right-wing news site The Daily Caller has come up with an innovative new method of attracting people to sign up for their email updates: Each week through Election Day new registrants will be eligible to win a free handgun. And not just any handgun; the weapon in question is "engraved with the Bill of Rights."

The gun's manufacturer, Jim Pontillo, has attacked American progressives for supposedly seeking to promote communism in America and claimed that "people calling for secession" are not "fanatics who hate America" but are instead acting "in the Founding tradition."

This ad is currently running on the website's NRA-sponsored "Guns and Gear" page:

Clicking on the image diverts readers to the landing page for "The Daily Caller Gun Giveaway," which states:

The Daily Caller will be giving away one gun per week until Election Day -- November 6, 2012.

The FMK9C1 is an American-made high capacity 9mm designed by Jim Pontillo and manufactured in California. Each gun is engraved with the Bill of Rights and comes in one of three colors.

To enter this week's contest, simply sign up below to receive updates from The Daily Caller. Our DC Morning emails are an informative and amusing way to keep up with the latest news.

The FMK9C1 is produced by FMK Firearms. On the About FMK Firearms page on their website, founder Pontillo writes:

For many American citizens who embrace a political philosophy which swings left, collectivism, socialism, and ultimately communism is the idealist utopia they aspire to capture and promulgate across America. For these people, For My Kountry, means to ridicule excellence, to fear prosperity, and to blame others for individual failures. 

It is an ideology which springs from mankind's weakest tenets...jealousy and envy. It is an ideology which attempts to tear all down to one low and "equal" or "fair" level. It is an ideology incapable of raising anyone or anything upward. Most of all, it is an ideology without any understanding of American culture or our American Founders' dream of creating a country free from government tyranny, open to individual initiative, and most important, insuring to all citizens those inalienable rights guaranteed to mankind by God. 

Read the full entry ...

Rush Limbaugh has introduced a new item in his online store: a shirt that uses a sexual reference to mock a women's rights group:

The design is a play on the National Organization for Women's logo:

On his show, Limbaugh described the shirt and told his listeners that it's a way to "drive the libs absolutely crazy and remind them that their false values are not yours."

Read the full entry ...

Journalism veterans and ethics experts are criticizing Fox News' Bret Baier for treating as credible the false claim that President Barack Obama might not have been born in the United States, with one experienced news person calling his recent coverage of the issue "a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility."

Baier, often viewed as among the more credible news people at Fox News, reported in a news brief Monday night that Arizona Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett threatened to remove Obama's name from the Arizona ballot if Hawaii officials didn't prove to his satisfaction that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Baier stated: "Bennett says he is not, quote 'a birther' but wants to clear up the issue for concerned Arizonans." But Baier failed to "clear up the issue" for Fox's viewers by stating outright that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, as indicated by his birth certificate and a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of his birth. 

This marked at least the third time this year that Baier reported on developments in the debunked 'birther' movement without providing this crucial context.

By contrast, Fox News' own Shepard Smith stated in 2011: "Well, he has produced a birth certificate. It shows his mother gave birth to him in Hawaii. It is stamped and sealed by the state of Hawaii. It is confirmed, and Fox News can confirm the president of the United States is a citizen of the United States, period."

In a radio interview Tuesday Bennett stated he had withdrawn the threat and told listeners: "If I embarrassed the state, I apologize." The Arizona Republic reported that a "Hawaii official sent Bennett's office verification of birth for President Obama on Tuesday, according to both Bennett and Hawaii officials."

Baier did not respond to several requests for comment.

Several veteran journalists and media critics criticized Baier for his reporting on the subject.

"Whatever the motivation of Arizona's secretary of state it is a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility for any news gatherer or disseminator not to ask the questions necessary to put a report on the secretary of state's actions in a context that would allow the reader or viewer of the report to make a decision on how he or she can use the information," said Bill Kovach, co-founder of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and former Washington, D.C. bureau chief of The New York Times. "In this case there is a rich history on the subject that raises deep and serious question about the motivation of anyone questioning President Obama's qualification for holding office including his citizenship and matters surround the time and place of his birth. To ignore this rich history of facts is irresponsible."

Tom Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University and former executive editor of The Miami Herald, cited Baier's error of omission.

"An error of omission is the more insidious error because it typically escapes being corrected," Fiedler said in an email. "Nothing in his report is inaccurate. The problem lies in Baier's failure to include one additional fact: that, in due regard for the laws of Hawaii, the president has released an official copy of his birth certificate stating as legal fact that his mother gave birth to him in Honolulu. The state of Hawaii accepts this. The U.S. State Department accepts this."

Read the full entry ...

In a new article today at American Thinker, graphic artist Mara Zebest -- who is identified as working "closely" with Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse "in providing evidence on Obama's forged birth certificate" -- highlights some supposed anomalies in a Situation Room photo from the day of the bin Laden raid in order to prove... something.

The American Thinker, which regularly publishes embarrassing drivel like this, is viewed as credible by prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who has called it "one of my most favorite and thoughtful blogs," and Lou Dobbs, who has cited them on his Fox Business program. 

The first mystery of this photo, per Zebest, concerns what may or may not be a pair of phantom pants under Obama's outstretched arms, and to whom they "would be attached." (Note: some of Zebest's images have been resized for this post.)

Zebest herself concludes the obvious: that the "pants" in question are actually not pants at all! Rather, they are fabric from Obama's jacket. Now, you might be asking yourself: "Why, if Zebest knew they weren't pants, did she speculate that they might be pants?" It's not clear, but see if you can follow her (generously defined) reasoning:

In all fairness, the initial impression leads the eye to believe that the beige fabric under the right armpit belongs to Robert Gates' pants (standing near Obama on the right).  However, if that were the case, then who would be attached to the pant leg under the left armpit?  It's not intuitively obvious, and it takes the viewer a little time to eventually come to a conclusion that these fabric strips are side panels built into the jacket design.  Maybe the New York Times found the presence of this fabric an odd distraction as well -- and the reason behind their cropped version.

Ah-ha! Obama caught in the act of wearing a confusing pants-like jacket! Impeach?

Read the full entry ...

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell tonight threw a wet blanket on Sean Hannity's longtime obsession with attacking President Obama over Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. 

During an interview with Powell on his Fox News show, Hannity said that he finds Obama to be "one of the most divisive figures in -- that I've witnessed in politics today." 

Powell responded: "[T]hat's a term that's being used rather freely. I don't think he's that divisive an issue." Powell then asked, "What could have been more divisive than, when President Obama was inaugurated, for a number of Republicans, friends of mine, and a number of commentators to say, 'We're going to destroy him. We're going to destroy him'?" 

Hannity replied: "I was one of his harshest critics. I wasn't out to destroy him." Hannity also asserted: "Well, I was critical about Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright." Powell responded: "I don't know Bill Ayers from the man in the moon. Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright are just passing things through [Obama's] life." Hannity then said that Obama spent "20 years" in Wright's church, to which Powell responded: "Well, so?" 

Hannity then pressed Powell on Ayers once more, asking, "An unrepentant terrorist giving speeches, starting your political career in his house. That didn't impress you at all?" 

Powell again pointed out that Ayers is and has been a non-issue, saying: "At the time, [Obama] was a guy who was living in Chicago and happened to have a friend by the name of Bill Ayers. But I don't see Bill Ayers as having that kind of longstanding terrorist influence on the president. I mean, it's ancient history now. Why are we fooling with this?" 

Powell later said that despite people trying "to make" Wright "the defining issue of the 2008 campaign" and "all the attacks" on Obama over Wright, "the American people took it in stride and they elected [Obama] president."

Hannity has been called out about his obsession about Wright and Ayers before, but it seems unlikely that he'll ever give up his obsession as long as Obama is in office.