Few things exemplify the ongoing right-wing, media-fueled campaign against reality as well as the hysteria surrounding implementation of light bulb efficiency standards, which gather the low-hanging fruit of energy conservation by inciting manufacturers to improve their technology. Following in a long line of federal efficiency standards created by Republican presidents, the light bulb requirements were signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush with bipartisan support.

Reporting on what it called "a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation," the New York Times noted back in 2009 that Philips Lighting had already developed a more efficient incandescent light bulb using halogen gas to comply with the new requirements. Philips executive Randall Moorhead has said that "the new incandescent lights were not being made because there was not an economic incentive to make them." The other major lighting companies have followed suit, and today halogen incandescent bulbs are widely available for purchase at hardware stores, department stores and online. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that "more efficient incandescent lights" will continue to make up a large portion of general service light bulb purchases for decades to come.

And yet the efficiency standards -- the first phase of which took effect on January 1 despite legislation blocking funding for enforcement -- have been met with outrage from conservative media who spent the last year claiming that they infringe on consumer "freedom of choice." Led by Fox News, right-wing media outlets have repeatedly told consumers that the standards would "ban" incandescent bulbs and force us all to purchase "mercury-laden, ugly and smelly compact fluorescent light bulbs," to the chagrin of electrical manufacturers. Fox has even gone so far as to encourage consumers to "hoard" the old, inefficient bulbs.

Given Fox's repeated insistence that "On January 1^st, the government is ... getting rid of incandescent light bulbs," Media Matters' Jocelyn Fong visited a local CVS store to evaluate their selection:

Read the full entry ...

A network that employs one contributor who repeatedly threatened to pull a "gun" on government employees and another who praised U.S. Marines for apparently urinating on dead Afghans is now hosting discredited liar Andrew Breitbart to provide political commentary. CNN anchors previously said that Breitbart lacks credibility following his use of deceptively edited video to smear former Obama administration official Shirley Sherrod as a racist.

Breitbart has appeared on CNN four times this year, including interviews with the network's hosts Dr. Drew Pinsky and Piers Morgan in panel segments during their coverage of the Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina and New Hampshire Republican primaries. Pinsky also hosted Breitbart on the January 20 edition of his show, Dr. Drew.

CNN is well aware of Breitbart's history of fabrications and his lack of credibility. After his infamous Sherrod smear unraveled, CNN's own Anderson Cooper calling his actions "a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse." Cooper joined a wide array of media who criticized Breitbart's tactics and pointed to what Ben Smith called his "growing credibility problem."

As recently as last November, CNN's Don Lemon reported that a remark from President Obama had been "taken out of context" in an ad produced by Mitt Romney's campaign and commented, "for those on the right who are jumping on the lazy bandwagon, perhaps they should remember that context is everything. And there's always the videotape. Just ask Andrew Breitbart and Shirley Sherrod."

Even Morgan has said that it is "perfectly natural to be suspicious of Mr. Breitbart" and "understandable people might be at least skeptical" of his reporting "given his track record."

In 2010, ABC News drew  widespread criticism, including from its own newsroom, after Breitbart's website reported -- and Media Matters confirmed -- that he would be providing analysis for the network during its election night coverage. ABC's George Stephanopoulos had previously called out Breitbart for pushing claims about Shirley Sherrod that were "clearly not true." The network subsequently announced that Breitbart would "not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage," but rather would be "participating in an online-only discussion and debate" for ABCNews.com. After many recriminations, with Breitbart saying he had been promised broadcast time and ABC responding that he had "exaggerated the role he would play," ABC dropped him from its elections coverage.

Surely CNN can also find a conservative to discuss elections who hasn't had his credibility rightfully criticized by the network's own anchors.

Among the many smears that the right-wing media have attempted to employ against President Obama is that he and his administration implement policies based on an anti-Catholic and anti-religion bias. On today's Fox & Friends, Fox legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. took up this campaign to attack the president by suggesting that a recent decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to not exempt certain religious institutions from a mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception and women's reproductive health was due to Obama being anti-Catholic.

Johnson called the decision "a violation of the United States Constitution" and a "massive incursion into religious liberty" and claimed Catholics might ask, "Why is President Obama picking on us this way?" From Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defending the White House's decision to give religious organizations an extra year before they will be required to provide employees free birth control. She says, quote, "This strikes a balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventative services." But religious leaders say this forces them to violate their consciences. Peter Johnson Jr., Fox News legal analyst, joins us with this reaction to -- OK, so the Catholic Church is being told you got to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and Plan B.

JOHNSON: Yeah, President Obama, after meeting with the bishops and after speaking allegedly with Cardinal Designate [Timothy] Dolan, the new cardinal from New York, has said that the federal government is going to demand that Catholic universities, Catholic social service agencies, Catholic institutions other than churches provide drugs that induce abortions, provide sterilizations, provide contraceptions free, really in violation of Catholic faith and, really, other organizations and other religious organizations, it violates their faiths. Some orthodox Jewish organizations, some evangelical groups have also objected. So they are speaking up now and they're saying, listen, this is a massive incursion into religious liberty, because now the federal government is demanding that by August 1, 2013, these faith-based organizations provide drugs that will provide abortions. And sterilizations. And they say this violates our faith. So on one hand, you're saying, well, can we keep faith but can we keep adherence of the law, and you're asking us to choose.

DOOCY: You can't do both.

JOHNSON: Well, it's a violation of the United States Constitution, and there will be a whole raft of lawsuits based on this incursion. And in an election year, a lot of Catholic voters are going to say why is the federal government doing this to us? Why is President Obama picking on us in this way? And I happen to be a Catholic.

Fox is not the only right-wing media outlet to take up this smear. WorldNetDaily posted a Business Insider brief on the regulations under the headline, "Obama Postpones Anti-Catholic Rule." National Review Online called the decision an "assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty."

Read the full entry ...

Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton has been quite clear about his disdain for what he see as the increased name-calling in American politics, and specifically a demeaning type of hateful rhetoric.

Last summer, the ombudsman noted the rise in "distasteful" emails he was getting about Obama:

They almost invariably use the "N" word for African Americans. Others use mocking shuck-and-jive language to portray Obama  lazy, evasive and sexually insatiable.

Pexton suggested "journalists should report divisive, extreme language used by politicians, pundits and even e-mailers," and that sometimes he responds to profane emailers by telling them their "behavior is uncalled-for and offensive."

The same subject seemed to return in Pexton's column yesterday, which opened with him providing a lengthy example of the type of conservative attacks he often receives:  

When President Obama has a bad day, or more specifically, on days when the economic news has been bad, I get a slew of feedback from conservative readers that go like this:

"See, you liberal media nincompoops, this is all your fault, you treated Obama like a saint when he was running in 2007 and 2008 and you didn't vet him, investigate him, report on him skeptically. You were so fawning (and adoring of his blackness), you missed that he was a (pick your adjective), radical, socialist, Muslim, inexperienced, dangerous, corrupt, weak Chicago politician with no track record of accomplishment, whose only talent is giving speeches."

 Those e-mails usually employ much harsher language, and some are filled with expletives.

This was precisely the kind of small-minded hate rhetoric that Pexton called out last year and urged fellow journalists to do the same. But instead of denouncing it this time, Pexton did the opposite: He used the name-calling about Obama's "blackness" and supposed "Muslim" faith as a legitimate jumping off point to analyze the Post's coverage of Obama and to urge the paper to be more critical of the president. (Much to the delight of far-right websites.) 

Media Matters has spent the last three years documenting the increasingly unhinged and unapologetic right-wing media attacks on Obama (and his wife) that long ago crossed over every conceivable line of common sense and decency. And Pexton was right last year to highlight the unseemly trend among Obama detractors, and to urge others to denounce it.  

That made Pexton's decision in Sunday's column to treat right-wing Obama hate language as a form of legitimate critique, and the type worthy of detailed response from the Washington Post, all the most distressing. 

On Friday, Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik defended CNN's John King for raising the issue of Newt Gingrich's marital history at the start of the Republican presidential debate the night before. King's question had prompted a stern lecture from Gingrich on media propriety, which was earnestly appreciated by the debate audience and replayed extensively by the press as election day in South Carolina loomed. Zurawik, having seen this same routine played out several times in the past, all but pleaded with the media stop letting Gingrich "bully" them:

Does the ability of someone as corrupted as Gingrich to bully the press and find support within the media ultimately reveal how confused and insecure the press has become about its standards? How is it that so few in the press seem to understand our higher purpose in a democracy -- the one intended by the founders to warrant those First Amendment guarantees?

Zurawik's message was simple: You know it's coming, be prepared, don't be cowed. It doesn't appear to have sunk in.

Gingrich took a post-South Carolina victory lap this morning and appeared with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press. Gregory asked Gingrich about his time as a "consultant, or, depending on your point of view, a lobbyist" for Freddie Mac. Newt responded by lecturing Gregory, at the end of which Gregory let the issue go:

The transcript, for those who can't see the video:

GREGORY: You are running against the establishment, you're trying to run as an outsider. You talk about housing in Florida. You were a consultant, or, depending on your point of view, a lobbyist for one of the mortgage giants. I'm wondering how you think you win that inside-outside game, given your history.

GINGRICH: David, wait a second, David. David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac, I said you need more regulations. If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress, it was in the New York Times in July of 2008, and I said do not give them any money.

Now I opposed giving money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they should both be broken up into four or five much smaller companies and I've long felt that. And so I think that to jump from one to the other is simply wrong. In Florida, my case is going to be very simple. You have a clear establishment candidate in Mitt Romney. Look where his money comes from, look at his background, look what he did in Massachusetts. And you have somebody whose entire career has been a Reagan populist conservative going all the way back to the 1970s.

I think that's a pretty clear contrast, and I think Floridians would like somebody who speaks for them to Washington, not somebody who speaks to the establishment to them.

The holes in Gingrich's "I was not a lobbyist" argument have been demonstrated several times over. Politifact gave the claim a "Half-True" rating, noting that it's depressingly easy and common for "consultants" who provide "strategic advice" (which is how Gingrich's campaign explained his relationship with Freddie Mac) to essentially function as lobbyists without having to register as such. The Washington Post called Gingrich's denials of being a lobbyist "clearly misleading," laying out all the known details of Gingrich's dealings with the mortgage giant.

There was plenty of easily obtained information Gregory could have used to push back on Gingrich's argument. But instead he moved on after Gingrich scolded him to not "mix these things up." And that's part of the reason why Gingrich keeps on scolding the press. It works.

In a January 20 Washington Times column, Robert Knight wrote that President Obama's administration "has manfully undertaken the task of turning America into a Constitution-free Third World country in need of international adult guidance." Knight also accused the president of "treacherous action against" the United States and of "dismantling our military before our very eyes." From the Times: 

I've thought of only one good thing so far that could result from killing the pipeline: Legions of Occupy Wall Street protesters just might leave their filthy squatter encampments in our cities and gather in coastal areas to watch the seas subside as Mr. Obama promised. Sorry about you coastal home dwellers. Welcome to our world. 

Mr. Obama's reckless disregard for America's needs particularly pleases his socialist friends in Europe, who have long thought that America needs a comeuppance. They've been cheering his every treacherous action against his own country, and this one's a doozy. It might not please the Russians, however, whose own burgeoning oil and gas industries will face competition from Canada. But you can't please everyone. Maybe it will be enough for the Russians that Mr. Obama is dismantling our military before our very eyes. 

By the way, if you criticize Mr. Obama for any of this, you must be a racist. 

I prefer being an optimist and thinking that things will turn out OK -- even while watching pipelines being killed, gasoline prices rising and Republican presidential hopefuls providing enough sound bites to fill 1,000 Obama campaign ads in November. 

Actually, we've been getting used to watching horrors for three years as the Obama administration has manfully undertaken the task of turning America into a Constitution-free Third World country in need of international adult guidance.

Previously: 

Wash. Times: Obama's Appointment Of Consumer Protection Chief Cordray Is "Lawless," "Tyranny"

During a Fox News appearance this evening, Mike Huckabee suggested that Mitt Romney, who has come under fire for refusing to immediately release his tax returns, respond by challenging President Obama to release his college application materials in order to "show whether he got any loans as a foreign student."

Speaking on The O'Reilly Factor, Huckabee said of Romney, "Let him make this challenge: 'I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns.'"

From the January 20 program:

O'REILLY: Because of the media, the perception is if you don't release [your tax returns], you're trying to hide something. Look, Romney doesn't want his tax returns in the hands of The New York Times because they're going to cherry-pick it and make him look like a greedhead and he doesn't want to give them any more ammo. You know what this is all about.

HUCKABEE: Absolutely. And the thing is you get zero credit from the media for releasing them and then you buy yourselves a lot of grief. The question is, why would you help load a gun that's pointed at your own head?

O'REILLY: Because the people, the folks, most of them, want you to. I think that's the answer to your question.

HUCKABEE: Well, but he has to forcefully tell it why he's not going to, why it's irrelevant, say, "Look, I've disclosed more than I need to." Let him make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns."

Obama's college applications materials - like his birth certificate - have long been the subject of conspiracies among certain segments of the right wing.

In May 2009, FactCheck.org assessed the claim made in a chain e-mail that Obama had attended Occidental College on a scholarship for foreign students. The email purported to quote an Associated Press story indicating that Obama's college transcripts had been released and indicated that Obama "under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school," and that the document "would seem to provide the smoking gun" proving that Obama is not an American citizen and is thus ineligible for the presidency.

FactCheck.org determined that "the claim is false and the story is a hoax," noting that the AP story had been fabricated as an April Fools' Day joke.

This is not the first time Huckabee has promoted falsehoods about Obama's background. During a February 2011 radio interview, he repeatedly claimed that Obama had grown up "in Kenya." Huckabee drew heavy criticism for his comments from the media and offered an evolving series of explanations for his comments, eventually blaming Media Matters for bringing his remarks to light and falsely claiming he had been taken out of context.

Former Fox employees Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich took the lion's share of last week's Fox Primary, with the two collectively appearing on Fox for over an hour and a half. Santorum and Gingrich accounted for over 50 percent of the time Fox devoted to interviewing the Republican presidential field.

Mitt Romney made just one appearance, but his presence was felt elsewhere on Fox, with host Eric Bolling declaring "we're all on board if Mitt's it," while Sean Hannity warned off Gingrich and Rick Perry from attacking Romney's record at Bain Capital.

So who's winning the Fox Primary? Each week at Media Matters, we watch the interviews, crunch the numbers, and tell you what Fox is up to in the presidential campaign.

Read the full entry ...

It's not uncommon to see Fox News figures complaining about so-called "media bias." What is less common, however, is to see a Fox News figure telling his colleagues he thinks their "bias" claim is made up.

At last night's Republican primary debate, CNN chief national correspondent and moderator John King opened by asking candidate Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife's allegation that he asked her for an open marriage. Gingrich blasted King in response, saying, "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

Fox News figures responded to the exchange by attacking CNN for having "bias" against Gingrich. On his Fox News show following the debate, Sean Hannity hosted Gingrich's daughters to attack King's question; he led the segment by referring to the "media['s]" "tawdry desire to go after this." On today's edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts repeatedly attacked King over the question. The show began with co-host Steve Doocy saying:

DOOCY: But for it to be the very first question -- there are so many gigantic challenges that are facing us here in the United States right now. And for that to be CNN's first question -- and remember, they sit around in a room and they figure out, OK, should we start with this or this? No, let's start with this. Let's try to get him. But brilliantly, Newt Gingrich knew eventually somebody was going to ask something like that. And he was able not only to hit it out of the park, but hit it into the next county.

In another segment, Doocy claimed that King's question was "one of the most egregious examples of media bias ever."

Watch:

Read the full entry ...

Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt has had enough:

There is growing consternation in Republican circles and among conservatives over why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates.

The ickiness of Diana Sawyer asking questions in her cloying voice is more than most can bear. The utter cluelessness of the questions these people think actual American voters care about is mystifying. The shameless and ham-handed pandering to conservatives by the networks is revolting.

Ordinarily the enthusiastic sexism and casual references to "Communist" television networks would be cause enough for concern, but Hurt directs this argument down a path that is straight-up terrifying. Breaking down Newt Gingrich's broadsides against CNN's John King at last night's debate in South Carolina, Hurt sketches out a mixed-metaphor-laced nightmare:

Now I realize that what we watched last night was not a simple beating and perhaps it was wrong of so many of us to enjoy it with such bloodlust. It was more a public evisceration. A man's entrails were picked out and drawn far out from inside him and left for jackals to chew on before his living eyes.

If John King of Communist News Network were not, in fact, a cardboard cutout of a blockheaded jock, it would have been much more gruesome. Because then human blood would have been spewing all over the stage and the fine people watching the debate live. Instead, it was just minced corrugated cardboard stuffing floating in the flood lights.

Yikes...

Granted, the brutally medieval imagery is somewhat befitting a candidate who has been the subject of epic ballads, but this is disturbing stuff.

An opinion piece by Dr. Keith Ablow, a member of Fox News' "Medical A-Team," appeared on FoxNews.com today. In it, Ablow argues that the fact that Republican candidate Newt Gingrich has been married three times means that he could be an effective president:

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich's behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here's what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude -- psychologically -- from Mr. Gingrich's behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married. 

3) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible. 

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we'll want to let him go after one.

Ablow concludes:

So, as far as I can tell, judging from the psychological data, we have only one real risk to America from his marital history if Newt Gingrich were to become president: We would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president. And I think that is exceedingly unlikely.

Previously:

Bad Medicine: Fox News Physicians Are A Prescription For Misinformation, Scientific And Otherwise

Fox's Dr. Ablow: WI Protesters Are "Parasitic And Need To Be Identified As Such. ... I'm Speaking Like A Scientist"

Fox's Keith Ablow: Withdrawal of study linking vaccines to autism is "the global warming, if you will, of autism"

Ablow: Policies Like Health Care Reform "Sow the Seeds" Of The "Kind Of Oppression" Seen In Egypt

Fox's Keith Ablow: "Of Course" Unions Support Obama, Because He Pursues "A Socialist Or Communist Manifesto"

Dr. Keith Ablow: Misinformer Of The Year On LGBT Issues

Fox's Ablow: Obama Speech Contained "Series Of Excuses About Why We Shouldn't Look At" Birth Certificate "Too Closely"

Fox's "Doctor" Ablow Dismisses Threat From Coal Plants

Ablow Uses "Farm Animals" Analogy To Attack Chaz Bono

Psychiatric Organization Rebuts Fox Doctor's Attacks On Chaz Bono, Dancing With The Stars

Long discredited gun researcher John Lott recently took to FoxNews.com to push for weakened restrictions on carrying concealed guns. Not surprisingly Lott again uses distorted anecdotes to support the gun lobby favored National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act. In fact, the same examples Lott cites to suggest gun laws are unreasonably punitive and inflexible actually show that even in states where gun charges can lead to stiff penalties, prosecutors have used discretion to avoid excessive punishments.

The legislation in question would force any state that issues its residents permits to carry concealed guns to accept the concealed-carry permits of all the other states -- no matter how weak the standards for getting a permit in those states. Several law enforcement associations have spoken out against the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act suggesting it would "endanger" police officers and "compromise public safety."

Lott focuses on two prominent cases where travelers to New York were arrested on gun charges. In both cases the individuals had concealed carry permits from their home states that were not valid in New York, and were voluntarily seeking to check their guns with authorities. Standards to carry concealed guns vary among states and states like New York with stronger restrictions sometimes don't accept permits from other states with less stringent restrictions. Lott's inaccurate description of these cases largely serves to falsely create the appearance that without concealed carry reciprocity, New York guns laws result in long jail terms for accidental offenders without consideration of possible mitigating factors.

Lott writes:

Just a few days before Christmas, Meredith Graves made a mistake that could end her medical career and send her to prison for at least 3 ½ years. The 39-year-old fourth-year medical student was carrying a permitted concealed handgun when she saw the sign at the 9/11 Memorial saying "No guns allowed." She did the responsible thing and asked a security guard where she could check her weapon. Unfortunately, while her Tennessee concealed carry license is recognized in 40 states, New York isn't one of them. Meredith was arrested.

Just a week earlier, Californian Mark Meckler told LaGuardia Airport officials that he had licensed handgun in a locked safe in checked baggage. At virtually any other airport in the country, checking a gun locked in a box wouldn't be a problem. Meckler was arrested and charged with second-degree possession of an illegal weapons. He faces up to 15 years in prison.

[....]

But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the local District Attorneys don't seem interested in showing mercy. They take a zero tolerance approach towards these mistakes.

However, four days before Lott's opinion piece was published, Meckler reached a plea agreement allowing him to pay a $250 fine for disorderly conduct with the gun charge conditionally dropped if Meckler stays out of trouble for a year.

A spokesman for the New York Port Authority police also challenged the suggestion that Meckler's violation was exclusively related to bringing the gun to the airport saying, "It's not a case that Mr. Meckler was in transit. He was in New York for several days having that weapon illegally. The bottom line is he violated the law."

The details of Graves' case doesn't support Lott's depiction of New York prosecutors taking a zero tolerance approach to honest mistakes either.

While her case hasn't been resolved yet, six days before Lott's piece was published The New York Post reported that Manhattan prosecutors were trying to work out a plea deal with Graves that according to sources cited by the paper could include no jail time. New York prosecutors also showed discretion in the case of a Maryland man accused of illegal gun possession, working out a deal in exchange for a misdemeanor plea involving no jail time earlier this month.

These cases show that when concealed carry permit holders from other states violate New York's laws unintentionally, there are already mechanisms in place to shield them from serious punitive action, without the passage of dramatic new national legislation.

Read the full entry ...

In his January 19 Washington Times column titled, "Opposing Obama is not racist," Jeffrey Kuhner wrote that "the postmodern left has embraced identity politics. They view America as an irredeemably evil nation, an aggregation of oppressed groups victimized by the white power structure." From the Times:

Hurling the racism charge has been used by liberals for years as an ideological stick to bludgeon conservative critics. In our time, it is the equivalent of previously being called a witch or heretic: a libelous smear that, if it sticks, results in social ostracism. Yet, the fact that liberals are now repeatedly - and blindly - resorting to it is a sign of desperation. It shows they are unable to defend Mr. Obama's abysmal record. His presidency has been an utter failure.

[...]

For decades, the postmodern left has embraced identity politics. They view America as an irredeemably evil nation, an aggregation of oppressed groups victimized by the white power structure. Mr. Obama's presidency represents the logical culmination of identity politics. It is a kind of liberal fascism - everything is viewed through the lens of race. People are not distinct individuals; rather, they are members of an ethnic or racial tribe. The irony is as leftists run around screaming bigotry at every conservative in sight, they are revealing their own perverse obsession with race. The only racism they are exposing is their own.

Yet, Mr. Obama is a socialist bent on transforming America. This is why he has lost Middle America. By charging racism, the left is only further polarizing our nation along ideological and racial lines.

Previously:

Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"

Kuhner: Obama "Injecting The Heroin Of Class Warfare And Socialism Into" America Will Lead To "Insanity And Death"

Wash. Times' Kuhner: MLK Had A "Dark Side" Including Being A "Radical Leftist"

Wash. Times' Tyrrell Suggests Obama Holds "Racist" And "Anti-American" Views

In a January 19 editorial headlined "Obama's appointment with tyranny: President grabs absolute power in abuse of recess commissions," The Washington Times attacked President Obama over his recess appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) during a Senate recess of fewer than three days, calling it "lawless" and a "play for absolute appointment-making sovereignty." 

However, past presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of three days or fewer, and neither the Constitution nor the courts have specified how long the Senate must be in recess for a president to make a recess appointment. Moreover, congressional Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstructionism that is preventing hundreds of Obama nominees from being confirmed. 

From the Times: 

President Obama's lawless Jan. 4 installation of a new director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau goes to the heart of his loose interpretation of our Constitution. Mr. Obama's actions show he believes checks and balance apply only to the other branches of government, not to him. 

[...] 

The recess appointment authority has drifted far from what was originally intended by the framers of the Constitution. Article II Section 2 allows that "the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." As a plain reading of the text indicates, this was intended to apply to openings that actually occurred when the Senate was in recess, such as when someone in a relevant office resigned, died or was incapacitated. It was a matter of reasonable convenience for the executive, not an invitation for the president to obviate the will of the people. This was the standard interpretation of the text for over a century. 

Congress further checked the power of the executive by stipulating no salary would be paid to anyone given a recess appointment if the position to which they were appointed existed during the prior Senate session. This law withered over time as various parties used recess appointments to their advantage, but it was sound legislation while it lasted and prevented much of the contemporary abuse of the power. It should be revisited. 

Unchecked power is inimical to liberty. Any legal reasoning that supports unlimited executive authority is thus false on its face. President Obama's play for absolute appointment-making sovereignty should be checked while there's still a republic to save.

Previously:

Fox & Friends Ignores Historic GOP Obstructionism In Attacking Obama Over Cordray Appointment

Conservative Media Back GOP Obstructionism, Attack Obama's Appointment Of Cordray As CFPB Chief

Last Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals decision and declared that people who are deemed "ministers" are not protected from wrongful termination under federal anti-discrimination laws. The decision - and the role the White House played in it -- predictably spawned a new wave of hysteria from right-wing media figures eager to construct a narrative that the Obama Administration has led an assault on religion that threatens the very liberty the Court had just reaffirmed.

But that criticism whitewashes the role that the Bush administration played in launching the suit, and ignores President Obama's actual record on religious issues.

The case involved a teacher who challenged her termination by a religious school, claiming protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Court was asked to balance the church's First Amendment claims with the federal anti-discrimination law, with the Obama administration arguing in favor of applying anti-discrimination laws to the ministry.

Contrary to the overheated rhetoric that ensued, the Court's opinion made clear that existing precedents and competing societal interests had to be taken seriously in reaching its decision. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts addressed a prior Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia which held that religious organizations are not exempt from broadly applicable, general laws, but concluded that the earlier case did not apply to this one. He also acknowledged that the case involved the balancing of two important, and occasionally competing, values. As he put it:

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.

To some observers, the Court's decision was a reminder that organized religion and the free exercise of religion occupy a strong position in American life, and that the Court's ruling should "end hysteria over religious liberty." To media conservatives, it fed into long-held delusions of the Obama administration's war on religion.

Read the full entry ...

For months conservative media have advocated on behalf of TransCanada Corporation, the Canadian company seeking to build the Keystone XL pipeline through the U.S. to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. After opposing every major effort under the Obama administration to stimulate the economy, conservative media -- led by Fox News -- have claimed that the pipeline should be approved because it would provide jobs even as it threatens the environment. Their job figures rely on industry-funded studies, and at times even grossly exaggerate those estimates. Watch as they struggle to get on the same page regarding which inflated estimate to use:

Hydraulic fracturing -- better known as fracking -- can release natural gas for extraction, but it can also produce toxic wastewater, contaminate the air, and leak so much methane into drinking water that some faucets near fracking sites can be lit on fire.

But if you watched Fox News, you'd only know the first fact; you wouldn't hear about the harmful environmental and health side effects.

Today, Fox & Friends hosted the president of a pro-fracking group to call on New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to allow fracking to take place in the state. New York currently has a moratorium on fracking while state regulators develop rules for the industry.

Co-host Steve Doocy began his interview with Karen Moreau, president of the Foundation for Land and Liberty, by asking, "What do you do when the key to revitalizing your town's economy is banned by the government?" After a clip of a recent pro-fracking film produced by the organization was aired, Doocy told Moreau, "Your film is great." Doocy also dismissed environmental concerns about fracking:

MOREAU: [Farmers] been waiting now for almost four years for New York State's regulatory agencies to approve horizontal hydrafracking.

DOOCY: See, now, you just said fracking.

MOREAU: Right.

DOOCY: And because that term has been so maligned by some members of the media, they go, oh, that's that thing where you turn on your faucet and the flames shoot out, which you say is not true. But nonetheless, fracking [is] OK and legal in Pennsylvania, not in New York, where so many family farms are about to go under.

Watch:

Read the full entry ...

Last night Fox News' Bill O'Reilly told his viewers that the Obama administration "gave France 1.2 billion" in clean energy funding. It was completely false and something Fox could have avoided with a few minutes of fact-checking. But a chunk of the blame belongs to CBS, which enabled O'Reilly's misinformation with its own sloppy journalism.

CBS News' new morning show ran a report on Friday by correspondent Sharyl Attkisson which purported to identify 11 "New Solyndras." The segment was surprisingly bad, and like so much reporting on clean energy these days, eagerly skipped over the facts in pursuit of a broader narrative. In the report, Attkisson included California solar company SunPower on her list of struggling clean energy companies purportedly risking taxpayer dollars:

ATTKISSON: SunPower landed a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth.

Citing CBS, O'Reilly concluded that "the French people got our money," adding, "We gave France 1.2 billion, because this company went bankrupt and the French guy swooped in ... grabbed the company, and went back to Paris with our money":

In reality, SunPower doesn't have a federal loan guarantee. NRG Energy acquired the project in question -- the California Valley Solar Ranch -- from SunPower shortly before the project received the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. So NRG, not SunPower, is on the hook for the loan. The CVSR project is not considered risky for taxpayers because California utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. already signed a long-term contract to buy the power from the solar plant.

Read the full entry ...

Following the announcement that the Obama administration will reject the permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, Fox Nation is sure that Obama is bowing, but they can't decide to whom quite yet.

The story as it was first posted:

A few minutes later:

The story as it currently appears on their website:

Previously:

Fox Wildly Inflates The Number Of Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Might Create

Fox Still Pushing Discredited Keystone XL Pipeline Jobs Claims

Conservative media are trying to blame the financial troubles of any renewable energy company on Obama -- whether his administration funded them or not. Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, an Ohio-based solar panel manufacturer you've probably never heard of, recently laid off about 40 employees. Soon after, Rush Limbaugh declared that the company was "another Solyndra" that received "federal Obama dollars" and Fox Nation claimed it was "Obama-Funded":

Trouble is, that's not true. The Toledo Blade reported in February that the company hadn't been able to obtain "federal funding or incentives":

The spotlight hasn't translated into federal funding or incentives for Willard & Kelsey, [WK Solar Chief Financial Officer Mossie] Murphy noted.

The company applied for, but did not receive, federal tax credits in 2009 for advanced energy projects. "There are other solar companies that are far better funded in terms of federal programs and stimulus dollars," he said.

Although WK Solar received support from the Ohio state government, a spokesperson for the company confirms that they "received no federal incentives."  

According to the Small Business Administration, around 50% of new companies fail in the first 5 years. WK Solar got up and running in 2008, as the economy was crashing and the credit crisis was in full swing. It's nonsensical to turn every struggling small business into a national story, but these days, the media seem to lose their minds when they hear the words "solar" or "clean energy."

Read the full entry ...