DOWNLOADS: 537

PLAYS: 47

Embed

From Nicole Sandler's Radio or Not, here's our own Nicole Belle's weekly segment called Fools on the Hill. If you try to catch the show live she's moved to a new time, 10am ET. You can listen to the entire podcast here.

Here's more from Nicole Sandler's blog:

And we’ll continue our Monday tradition of getting together with Crooks & Liars‘ Nicole Belle to dissect the Sunday talking head shows, in a segment we call “Fools on the Hill.”

Here’s what she sent me for today’s show, complete with links to all the clips we’ll comment on today so you can play along at home:

I guess since this weekend marked the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, our relationship to the Muslim community was a large theme of the day.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman behind the Cordoba House, was on This Week and called the attacks now on the Park51 center—especially by partisans like Palin—are “disingenuous”:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/imam-rauf-palin-attacks-islamic-center-are-0

Reza Aslan did the imam one better. During a roundtable of Meet the Press, Aslan cut down to the essence what many of us who are trying to make a distinction between terrorism and Muslims in general:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/reza-aslan-if-you-are-painting-15-billion-

The answer is kind of simple, actually: Islam. But let’s call a spade a spade for a moment. If you are painting 1.5 billion people with the same brush of violence and, and, and extremism, you’re a bigot. And I think what’s, what’s disturbing is the way that that’s become part of the, the, the natural discourse now.

To punctuate this point, Dave Neiwert did a post on 9/11 that noted that the Bipartisan Policy Center just recently released a report titled “Assessing the Terrorist Threat”, and did not note a single homegrown terrorist of a radical, right wing or Christian background, like the guy who wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation, or Dr. Tiller’s assassination, or the shooters at the Holocaust Museum, the Universalist Unitarian Church, or the Hutaree militia.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/assessing-threat-despite-rise-right-

Then we have the same old lies to the people on taxes. I think that this is being calculated as a the biggest arrow in the Republican quiver. I mean, when you have tea party types saying they’ve been taxed enough already (and they’ve already gotten a tax cut by Obama and would not be included in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts) and yet, we’re still having partisans telling us that repealing Bush tax cuts will affect small businesses:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/peter-morici-repeats-lie-repealing-bush-ta

Chris Wallace tries to do it too, and new chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers Austen Goolsbee sets him straight:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/austan-goolsbee-calls-out-chris-wallace-sm

And then finally, Howard Kurtz calls out Hannity for his “deceptive” editing of Obama’s Labor Day speech, ignoring that this is a standard operating procedure for Fox News:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/kurtz-calls-out-hannity-his-deceptiv

It’s an exciting time for me. Thanks for bearing with the changes…. radio or not!

DOWNLOADS: 577

PLAYS: 278

Embed

In case you missed it like I did, here's our own Nicole Belle with Nicole Sandler with their Fools on the Hill Sunday talking heads show roundup from past Monday. Nicole Sandler has more here: Grayson & Tudor – Florida Progressives!

And in hour two, Nicole Belle of Crooks & Liars returns for our weekly Fools on the Hill segment, discussing the Sunday talking head shows. Here’s her take on the Sunday shows:

So I think today’s theme is cluelessness:

Chris Matthews asks his panel if the Tea Party will have veto power over the 2012 GOP nominee. First and foremost, they are using Sarah Palin as some benchmark of influence, which is ludicrous. Her endorsement is by no means a shoo-in for any candidate right now, and there’s nothing that says her influence will strengthen in the intervening years. If anything, if she opts to pursue a national candidacy herself, I suspect that the media scrutiny will result in her having even less credibility.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39178

It also gives the tea party itself far more credit than they deserve. I think we’ve seen middling electoral success from them in primary races, but they have yet to show themselves successful in full elections and given the polls for Angle, Paul and others, I don’t think they should crow just yet.

Which segues nicely into Howard Dean. He points out to Candy Crowley that although the conventional wisdom is that the party in power suffers electorally in mid-terms, when your alternative is the Party of No, conventional wisdom may be wrong.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/howard-dean-name-one-thing-republican

And then we have Dick Armey, the corporate head of the Tea Party, spouting off some truly unbelievable stuff:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dick-armey-medicare-trashes-constitution

He says that Medicare trashes the Constitution. Huh? What does he think those lazy, entitled senior citizens should do? Work to pay for their Alzheimer’s treatment? For proof, he brings up the example of “the” Christian Scientist, whom we apparently should feel bad is being forced to sign up for a doctor to get Social Security. Of course, no one says he has to GO to the doctors, just sign up for Medicare. But again, David Gregory falls down on the job of calling out this crap, and lets Armey filibuster through the segment and not allow Granholm to respond.

And then, in light of the protests on the Cordoba House in NYC over the weekend, Fareed Zakaria wants to remind Americans that we are not in a war with Islam and that al Qaeda hates factions of Islam as bad as they hate us.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fareed-zakaria-gps-al-qaeda-vs-islam

By the way, a commenter made this video of the NYC protests when the haters went after a passerby, who happened to be a construction worker at Ground Zero and not a Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded

George Will thinks that the Mideast peace process is the biggest obstacle to Mideast peace.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39185

Amazingly, I actually agree with him if only for this story:

http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/israeli-pm-natanyahu-america-easily-move

I think if we really want to see Mideast peace, then the US needs to come to grips with the dichotomy between what Israel officially tells us and what they say behind closed doors.

And then Fox chooses to use Judith Miller of all people to discuss the study that American people have lost faith in broadcast news

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39175

Really, what can you say about them using the person the Bush White House used to feed propaganda about invading Iraq to?

Our own Howie Klein and Rep. Alan Grayson joined the show this week as well. Go over to Nicole's site to listen to the whole show.

DOWNLOADS: (27)

PLAYS: (123)

Embed

Oh look! It's Fox's favorite Brit and the Brown-Haired Guy Who Isn't Steve Doocy doing what they do best on this Friday's Fox & Friends -- lying and fearmongering.

This works out so well for them. They get to bash the EPA, the IRS and "big government," pull out their favorite crucified abused conservative victim card and make excuses for why their candidate got his ass kicked in the last presidential election.

Jason Easley has more on the huge game of projection we had going on here: Fox News Claims That US Government Rigged The 2012 Election For Obama:

Fox News has invented a new reason why Mitt Romney lost the election. They are claiming that government bureaucrats unfairly tilted the playing field for Obama in the 2012 election.

On Fox and Friends Stuart Varney said, “It’s bigger than the IRS. There’s a suspicion here that the machinery of government has been used to suppress conservatives. That the election in fact was not a level playing field. There was a tilt, and it was orchestrated by government bureaucrats. You just mentioned the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, almost always when liberal groups apply for a waiver of document fees, they were granted that waiver. Conservative groups had to pay. Now that’s a form of financial pressure on conservative groups. Then you’ve got disaster relief funds. Four states, red states run by Republican governors, were denied disaster relief funds. Then you’ve got the IRS. It’s not just the tax exempt office. Conservative supporters, supporters of conservative groups, they were audited. Republican donors, audited. And there’s a consistent pattern here. So Republicans, conservatives are looking back over the last four years and saying there is a pattern. There is a pattern of going after conservatives which affected the election. The government bureaucracy was used as a hammer in a way that it was not supposed to be used.”

Brian Kilmeade claimed that it was hard to argue with these examples because there are actual living breathing people that have proof of it.

It is really easy to argue with Varney’s examples, because they are either not true or come from dubious sources.

Go read the rest of the post for more and his breakdown of why their claims don't hold water and as he noted, President Obama won the election despite Republicans' best efforts to suppress as many Democratic voters as possible across the country.

Don't look for this stupidity to end any time soon folks. They've been using the IRS "scandal" to do everything from attacking "Obamacare" to letting every conservative crackpot who has ever been audited to claim they had a big target on their head with no proof whatsoever, to claiming that the union members who work at the IRS were helping President Obama get re-elected. It's never going to end as long as there's a Democrat in the White House. Never.

DOWNLOADS: (64)

PLAYS: (645)

Embed

Good for Hannah and her mom.

via ABC News:

Don Thompson, CEO of McDonald's Corp., found himself on the grill after a 9-year-old girl accused the fast food giant of trying to "trick kids into eating food that isn't good for them."

Hannah Robertson, 9, flew in with her mom from Kelowna, British Columbia, to attend McDonald's annual shareholder meeting Thursday in Oak Brook, Ill., the company's headquarters.

"Something that I don't think is fair is when big companies try to trick kids into eating food that isn't good for them by using toys and cartoon characters," Robertson read during the question and answer part of the meeting. "If parents haven't taught their kids about healthy eating then the kids probably believe that junk food is good for them because it might taste good."

Her mother, Kia, attended the meeting as a member of advocacy group Corporate Accountability International (http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/), headquartered in Boston and with offices around the world. Kia Robertson, 36, started "Today I Ate a Rainbow" in 2009, described as an "interactive nutritional game," and is a nutrition blogger.

DOWNLOADS: (94)

PLAYS: (862)

Embed

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert (R) on Thursday told a woman that she wrong to have an abortion after it was discovered late during her pregnancy that her fetus had no brain function.

At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice hearing to push for a 20-week abortion ban, Christy Zink testified that the bill would have required her "to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain."

"Being there in a neonatal ICU, I did see that there was one child there that was missing parts including a spine," Gohmert said, recalling the birth of his daughter. "And the parents ended up, when it was clear that there was no brain activity whatsoever, there was decisions that they had to make at that point."

"Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both, I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wait, like that couple did, and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart?" he asked. "So, these are ethical issues, they’re moral issues, they’re difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted."

"But it just seems like, it’s a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions."

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar 20-week abortion ban in Arizona was unconstitutional.

(h/t: Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (33)

PLAYS: (172)

Embed

It's clear that Rep. Steve King is no fan of immigration reform, or amnesty as he calls it. It's also clear that he and other wingnuts in congress should be really leery of using foreign concepts to them such as "statistical analysis" when they're speaking, as evidenced by the bewildered expressions in the room to King's theory.

via The Hill

The Iowa Republican said immigrants that Ronald Reagan legalized by signing a 1986 "amnesty" bill were responsible for Obama's election.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Thursday that President Obama would not be president if it weren't for the 1986 amnesty bill that Ronald Reagan signed into law.

King is a leading GOP critic of efforts to pass an immigration reform bill, and has often said on the House floor that Republicans are overreacting to the 2012 election, which some Republicans saw as a sign that the GOP needs to get behind a reform bill.

In an effort to dissuade Republicans, King argued that the 1986 immigration bill that Reagan signed into law is estimated to have brought amnesty to three million illegal immigrants.

He said conservative estimates show that, on average, each of these people brought in five others, leading to 15 million more people in the country, most of whom voted for Obama.

"[T]hey have to admit that Ronald Reagan's signature on the '86 amnesty act brought about Barack Obama's election," King concluded on the House floor.

"[I]t's clear to anybody that can do any kind of statistical analysis that Barack Obama wouldn't be President of the United States without Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty act."

DOWNLOADS: (32)

PLAYS: (118)

Embed

I'm not sure just who Charles Krauthammer thinks is supposed to be "surrendering" to the United States to finally end this so-called "war on terror," but that's one of the only two scenarios he offered to his cohort Bret Baier on Fox this Thursday as legitimate reasons to end the United States pretending we're at war with a tactic.

Krauthammer: Obama's View Of War "Is A Naive And Utopian Idea":

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I give the president credit for moral seriousness. But there is a flaw at the center of it which has to do with the strategic idea that he has. He central idea here is that it explains why he wants to restrict the drone war, he explains why he wants to shut Guantanamo, he explains why he wants to change and ultimately repeal the law that authorizes the War on Terror. He wants all of that. But it derives from this notion which is every war has to come to an end. Every war in the past has and he said this war like all wars must end. That is a naive and utopian idea.

It is true that all other wars have ended. But to end a war you need two sides. You will either have the surrender like the Germans and Japanese. Even Kim Il-sung agreed to an armistice, it was not unilateral. You don't declare the war's over if there is no response, assume with your head in the sand it's over. And the Cold War there never was a surrender, but the Soviet Union disappeared. That was after half a century. Here we are 12 years in, it's as if Obama stood up in 1958 and said the Cold War has to end and I'm going to end it.

The problem is it doesn't end until either al Qaeda disappears or it renounces the declaration of war it made in 1996. And that's why all the proposals he wants are completely impractical and ultimately harmful.

Or in other words, never. That use of force should have never been given in the first place and it's long past due that President Obama is calling for it to be rolled back. I knew the heads would be exploding over at Fox following that speech. It's pretty pathetic watching Krauthammer twist himself in knots trying to justify his position.

DOWNLOADS: (278)

PLAYS: (2917)

Embed

Following President Obama's big speech this Thursday on national security and counterterrorism, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took the opportunity to go after the Obama administration and the DOJ for their willingness to go after whistleblowers, journalists, potheads, hackers and even people who just lied on their mortgage applications, while refusing to prosecute a single Wall Street banker.

While I agree with Stewart on majority of his criticisms here, I'd use the term "journalist" lightly when it comes to anyone from Fox and as Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite pointed out, James Rosen was not just simply reporting that North Korea wanted to do more nuclear tests to draw the government scrutiny he did, as Stewart asserted here.

I'd also like to hear more about that AP story and what was going on there before rushing to judgement as well, although I think the bigger argument ought to be over all of our privacy rights and just how much of that has been thrown out the window.

In an age following the hysteria right after 9-11 and the Patriot Act and with the NSA pretty well out of control along with most corporations who aren't kept in check with protecting our private information, I'm glad to see there is at long at last some attention being drawn to the subject.

It's pitiful that it took some members of our corporate media finally being subjected to what sadly is potentially perfectly legal overreach for them to care at all about what's been happening to a whole bunch of our citizens for years on end now, and well before Barack Obama was elected president. Maybe they could do something constructive like calling for members of Congress and President Obama to roll back some of the horrid legislation that was passed during the Bush administration. But then, who am I kidding... right? They'd rather just use this as an excuse to pile on with the scandal-mongering we've seen over the last half a year or so.

But back to The Daily Show segment above, when it comes to criticism about these Wall Street bankers run amok and the fact that not a one of them has ever gone to jail, while they're aggressively going after things like medical marijuana dispensaries, or someone who lied about their income on their mortgage papers, or whistleblowers who are actually trying to uncover government malfeasance, and not the Benghazi/IRS Tourette syndrome scandal-mongering we've been subjected to -- by all means, have at them Jon Stewart.

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (2540)

Embed

A host of the Fox News show The Five was so angry that the Justice Department had investigated one of the network's reporters that she told her viewers on Thursday to find anyone who voted for President Barack Obama and "punch them in the face."

"Fox said, we're targets, clearly Media Matters and others have put us on a target list," Fox News host Andrea Tantaros explained on the Thursday edition of her radio show. "And they said, 'Oh, Fox is just crazy! They're just paranoid!' Really? Are we?"

"This is what is happening to our press! This is Obama's America! It's like the Soviet Union," she continued. "He said he would change the country. He said it. And a lot of people voted for him."

"And if you see any of those people today, do me a favor, punch them in the face."

After a commercial break, a caller from South Carolina told Tantaros that he hated Obama, but worried that telling people to punch Obama voters in the face was sending the wrong message.

"To be clear, I didn't say punch Obama in the face," the Fox News host pointed out. "You're going to get me arrested with this type of government."

"If someone voted for him!" she insisted to the caller. "If anyone that you know who voted for President Obama, smack 'em down."

(h/t: Media Matters)

DOWNLOADS: (192)

PLAYS: (2408)

Embed

Hey what do you know -- someone on Morning Joe got to call out a Republican for pulling factoids out of their posterior without Scarborough there screaming over them and interrupting. I guess he was taking a break during this segment. Don't worry though, his co-host Mika Brzezinski did her best to keep up scandal-mongering in his absence.

As a rule, you may as well turn on just Fox and be done with it than to sit through any of this show on MSNBC, but you do have some rare occasions where something like this happens: MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ Slams GOP Chair For Insinuating Obama Is Involved In IRS Scandal:

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday morning, panelist John Heilemann got into a heated argument with GOP Chairman Reince Priebus over President Obama’s role in the targeting of conservative groups applying for 501(c)4 status. Priebus offered a series of comments trying to tie Obama to the scandal — which Republicans have attempted to frame the IRS scandal as Obama’s ‘Watergate’ moment — leading Heilemann to shout “that’s an assertion that’s not actually borne out by any of the facts”:

HEILEMANN: Okay. You used two phrases just now saying we have to wait for the facts but I’m entitled to my opinion and before we have the facts just wait. You then said it’s lawlessness and guerrilla warfare and Obama is in the middle of. You say we need to have all of the facts before we can determine whether President Obama is in the middle of it and now you’re asserting the fact he’s in the middle of it. That is your public tweet.

PRIEBUS: I would say it is consistent. When I start out an investigation and say it’s low level employees in Cincinnati and then you find out there are senior level people in Washington. Then Pfeiffer goes on five Sunday morning shows and says the White House didn’t know anything about this and two days later you figure out that the chief of staff actually knew about it. You have a hundred and, what? 15 visits from Shulman to the White House and 132 Democratic senators pleading with the IRS to investigate this. And the Chief of Staff of the White House is now involved or at least knew about it when — two days earlier Pfeiffer said they didn’t know about it.

HEILEMANN: I thought you said you have the facts you need. If you don’t have the facts you need why are you saying he’s in the middle of it?

Never mind as they noted that the IG's report found nothing of the kind, and as Lawrence O'Donnell has been pointing out over and over again, the real scandal here is that any of these organizations doing political activities have been given tax exempt status as "social welfare" groups.