Tag Archives: New Yorker

Fox News Gives Karl Rove’s Crossroads Groups Millions In Free Airtime

Karl Rove on Fox News Channel

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They (the Tea Party) were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.  (The New Yorker)         Ed. Note: Emphasis are mine

Think Progress

Though Karl Rove receives a salary from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for his work as a Fox News Channel “political contributor,” his compensation doesn’t end there. The network frequently airs ads by his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS political committees, as “news,” free of charge.

A review of Fox News Channel broadcasts over the past twelve months revealed that Fox News programs ran all or a significant part of Crossroads ads at least 34 times — an estimated value of more than $3.6 million in free air time. Frequently, the network’s hosts run the ads during Rove’s segments and then allow him to explain and repeat their charges.

On Monday, for example, Fox News aired a significant chunk of a new American Crossroads ad attacking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Noting criticism the ad received from conservative columnist William Kristol, host Martha MacCullum asked Rove: “What say you?”

Watch the video:

Continue reading here…

 

Comments Off

Filed under Fox News, Karl Rove

4 innocent people wrongly accused of being Boston Marathon bombing suspects

17-year-old Sulahaddin Barhoum was wrongly accused by the New York Post.

The Week

As soon as two pressure cookers crammed with shrapnel killed three innocent bystanders and wounded scores more near the Boston Marathon’s final stretch on Monday, the hunt for a terror suspect was on. Right now, police are combing through Watertown, Mass., in hopes of finding the second of two brothers from Chechnya suspected of carrying out the attack, but not before several knee-jerk, false alarms triggered by Reddit and an information-hungry media led to several other “suspects” being wrongly ID’d. How could this happen? Here, a rundown of the wrongfully accused:

1. “The Saudi national”
Age: 21

On Monday, in the immediate frenzy of the explosions, the New York Post boldly trumpeted that a “Saudi national who suffered shrapnel wounds” had been identified as “a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.” Yes, a 21-year-old English student who was, in fact, injured by the very bombing he was suspected of plotting.

Talking Points Memo quickly debunked the The Post‘s claim that the person being questioned was a suspect. “Honestly, I don’t know where they’re getting their information from, but it didn’t come from us,” a Boston Police Department spokesperson told TPM. The young Saudi national was later revealed to be a witness, not a suspect. The Post never apologized.

“What made them suspect him?” asks Amy Davidson at The New Yorker. “He was running — so was everyone.”

The police reportedly thought he smelled like explosives; his wounds might have suggested why. He said something about thinking there would be a second bomb — as there was, and often is, to target responders. If that was the reason he gave for running, it was a sensible one. He asked if anyone was dead — a question people were screaming. And he was from Saudi Arabia, which is around where the logic stops. Was it just the way he looked, or did he, in the chaos, maybe call for God with a name that someone found strange? [The New Yorker]

2. A high school track star
Age: 17

The intrepid online sleuths at Reddit had nothing but good intentions when they created a subforum to crowdsource information on the criminals behind the Boston attacks. As my colleague Keith Wagstaff wrote, “the /r/findbostonbombers subreddit is a mostly harmless rabbit hole of marked photos and amateur conjecture,” but “the problem starts when theories go viral or are adopted by the media.”

Case in point: This photo of a “suspect” standing next to another man implicated for not doing much more than wearing a backpack. Worse still, the New York Post shamelessly plastered that same image on its front page the next day, along with the guilt-drenched cover line “BAG MEN.”

The young man in question turned out to be 17-year-old Salah Eddin Barhoum, a high school track star who moved to the U.S. four years ago from Morocco. His dream is to one day run in the Olympics.

“I’m not a terrorist… I was just watching the marathon,” Salah told the Daily Mail. “I was terrified. I have never been in trouble, and I feared for my security.”

At 1.30am I called a friend to take me to the state police — I walked into the lobby and told them I thought I was wanted by the FBI. They didn’t know what to make of it.

I had my papers with me and I gave them my Social Security number so they could check me out.

They didn’t even take me into a private room. They made some calls, then said I was free to go. [Daily Mail]

The internet, ladies and gentleman.

3. A missing student
Age: 22

“Thousands of Reddit users and 4chan people spent the days after the bombing combing through every available photo and frame of video of the site of the bombings, searching for the perpetrators,” says Alex Pareene at Salon. “And they found a bunch of guys with backpacks.”

One of them was believed to be Sunil Tripathi, a Brown University student from Pennsylvania who has been missing since March 16. Tripathi allegedly left behind all his belongings, as well as a vague note that suggested a possible suicide. Says one of his friends:

Having known Sunil for years as a classmate, roommate, and friend, I can honestly say that he was one of the nicest individuals I’ve met at Brown. He has a great sense of humor and got along well with everyone. He loves to bike, play the sax, and talk about philosophy. We all hope that he is safe, wherever he is. [International Business Times]

“Who disappears — causing a well-publicized region-wide search that had already expanded beyond Providence to Boston — a month before carrying out a terrorist attack?” asks Pareene. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to act normal as long as possible, and maybe not do something that gets your picture posted all over television and the Internet before you attempt to plant a bomb in an incredibly public venue?”

Some blogs still picked up the story and ran with it. Tripathi’s name and picture were everywhere. A Facebook page, “Help Us Find Sunil Tripathi,” was soon deleted by his family after it filled up with ugly (and false) accusations.

Tripathi’s whereabouts are still unknown. 4. A mystery man Age: Unknown On Thursday night, gunshots rang through the MIT campus in what became a bloody shoot-out after the two actual suspects robbed a 7-Eleven. Twenty-six-year-old police officer Sean Collier was left dead. And somehow, a man named Michael Mulugeta was (falsely) reported to be involved. The confusion came when hacker group Anonymous posted a tweet: “Police on scanner identify the names of #BostonMarathon suspects in gunfight, Suspect 1: Mike Mulugeta. Suspect 2: Sunil Tripathi.” It was retweeted nearly 3,200 times. It was also, well, wrong.

It remains unclear who Mulugeta is — or if he even exists.

“The last thing we want to become are reporters for the fugitive,” Clint Van Zandt, former FBI profiler and NBC criminal analyst, told NBC News. “That’s what I think people who tweet and post have to be careful of in the extreme and worst-case scenario. Are they giving information that would give aid and comfort to a killer? If you ask yourself that question and the answer is no, then go ahead and post it.”

1 Comment

Filed under Boston Marathon Bombings, New York Post

Ted Cruz Responds: Harvard Law Was Full of Communists

ted-cruz-hls-follow-up.jpg

A few days ago New Yorker reporter, Jane Mayer, wrote an article on the newly seated but high-profile senator from Texas, Ted Cruz entitled Is Senator Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy?  The article was based on statements Senator Cruz had made a speech in 2010 where he stated that Harvard Law School was full of “Communist Professors”.

Rachel Maddow had two fascinating segments (the first, starting at the 7:03 point) about Ted Cruz and the analogy to Senator Joe McCarthy.  The next segment was an interview with Jane Meyer.

This current article demonstrates how Senator Cruz has in fact “doubled-down” on his statement.

The New Yorker

Senator Ted Cruz has responded to The New Yorkers report that he accused Harvard Law School of having had “twelve” Communists who “believed in the overthrow of the U.S. Government” on its faculty when he attended in the early nineties. Cruz doesn’t deny that he said this; instead, through his spokesman, he says he was right: Harvard Law was full of Communists.

His spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told The Blaze website that the “substantive point” in Cruz’s charge, made in a speech in 2010, was “was absolutely correct.”

She went on to explain that “the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’—a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism—and they far outnumbered Republicans.” As my story noted, the Critical Legal Studies group consisted of left-leaning professors like Duncan Kennedy, who is a social democrat, not a Communist, and has never “believed in the overthrow of the U.S. Government.”

Among those who have taken issue with Cruz’s castigation of the Harvard Law School faculty are his former law professor, Charles Fried, who is a well-known Republican and former Solicitor General to Ronald Reagan. In his 2010 speech, Cruz had said there was only “one” Republican on the faculty, but his former professor, Fried, told The New Yorker there were at least four, including himself. A spokesman for Harvard Law School, Robb London, also described the school as “puzzled” by Cruz’s allegations.

Cruz’s spokesman called it “curious” that The New Yorker would cover Cruz’s speech “three years” after he gave it. But Cruz’s hostile questioning of Obama’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, and insinuations about Hagel’s loyalties had provided a fresh context for looking more closely at the nature of the accusations he has leveled at political opponents. Observers like Senator Barbara Boxer wondered if they were seeing a revival of McCarthyism. Judging from Cruz’s speech—and, now, his defense of it—it’s a good question.

2 Comments

Filed under New McCarthyism, Sen. Ted Cruz

N.R.A. DEFENDS RIGHT TO OWN POLITICIANS (Andy Borowitz)

lapierre-nra-boro.jpg

The New Yorker

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said, it is time for society to take a look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.: “There’s no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.”

For his part, the N.R.A. leader ended his testimony by serving notice that he would “resist any attempt” to take away the hundreds of elected officials he says are legally his.

As if to illustrate that point, he clutched Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) close to his chest and bellowed, “From my cold, dead hands.”

4 Comments

Filed under Humor

Blog Roundup Saturday 12-15-2012

The Fox Delusion Continues

Zero Dark Thirty: An Update

Obama’s Statement on the Shootings

In Public ‘Conversation’ on Guns, a Rhetorical Shift

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

GOPer Mike Huckabee blames shooting on lack of prayer in school

Earth to the Pundits: Scott Brown Lost Big and Would Lose Big Again

Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign’s ad on Jeeps made in China

Limbaugh Delivers Sexist Remark About Making A “Real Woman” Out Of Hillary Clinton

Geraldo Rivera: ‘Angry, Old, White Men’ Made Susan Rice the ‘Minimum Price’ for Benghazi

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Forget The Birthers, Meet The SAT Truthers!

This is undoubtedly the most outrageous show of disdain for President Obama to date…

Outside The Beltway

As part of the ongoing absurdity that is Bretbart.com’s series “The Vetting,” Charles C. Johnson is demanding to see the President’s SAT scores:

President Barack Obama is hailed by his supporters and the mainstream media as one of the most brilliant men ever to hold the office. However, his refusal to release his academic records, his admitted deficiencies as a student, and his frequent factual errors–even in his chosen field of constitutional law–have cast doubt upon his supposed genius. Now, Breitbart News has established that Obama’s grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.

A Nov. 18, 1981 article in the Columbia Spectator, “Tight Housing Discourages Transfer Applications to CC,” written by student Jeremy Feldman and quoting admissions officials, reported: “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined along with the number of applicants, the officials say.”

Feldman, quoting Robert Boatti, Assistant Dean of Admissions, as well as the late college Dean Arnold Collery, continued:

Boatti also attributed the drop in transfer application to the College’s policy of requiring transfer students to take courses in its core curriculum and to the limited availability of financial aid for them.

He added a “majority” of the transfers come here from college in the New York area. Many come from community colleges, rather than the nation’s top schools.

“Even the unhappiest people don’t transfer from Harvard,” Boatti said.

In grades and other indicators of academic performance, the crop of transfer applicants “doesn’t stand out the way they did before,” [Dean Arnold] Collery said.

Boatti confirmed Collery’s observations.

Among accepted transfer students, the average combined math and verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is a 1,100 and their grade-point average at their former schools is about 3.0, Boatti said.

The freshman class at the College had a combined SAT score more than 100 points higher.

Only 450 students applied to transfer to Columbia in 1981 and sixty-seven were admitted, according to the Columbia Spectator, compared to 650 applicants just four years before.

If Obama’s SAT scores were near the average of the transfer students entering Columbia in the fall of 1981, he would have scored significantly lower than George W. Bush, whose combined math and verbal scores were 1206 out of a possible 1600 points (as revealed by the New Yorker in 1999).

Seriously folks, this is what you’re spending your time on these days? What’s next, a demand for a complete record of finger painting done by a young Barack Obama to determine whether he may have been using the color red too much?

The stupid, it hurts.

Comments Off

Filed under Obama Derangement Syndrome

More Ethics Trouble for Clarence Thomas

Mother Jones

If Clarence Thomas was hoping that liberals might just forget about his cozy ties to a Dallas real estate developer, or his failure for a decade to disclose the hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife earned from a conservative think tank, well, he would be wrong. As President Obama’s health care reform bill gets closer and closer to a hearing before the high court, liberal groups are continuing to press for some sort of disciplinary action against Thomas, or at least to force him to recuse himself from hearing the health care case.

To that end, on Tuesday, the left-leaning Alliance for Justice and the good-government group Common Cause asked the Judicial Conference of the United States, which oversees the federal courts, to investigate whether Thomas violated the Ethics in Government Act. The groups allege that Thomas may have violated the act when he failed to disclose his wife Ginny Thomas’s compensation—upwards of $700,000—from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.

The groups also are asking the Judicial Conference to investigate whether Thomas may have failed to report travel paid for by the Texas real estate developer Harlan Crowe, as reported by the New York Times. The Judicial Conference was holding its semi-annual meeting in DC this week when the advocacy groups sent their letter. If the Conference concludes that the allegations have merit, federal law requires that if it “has reasonable cause to believe has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported” it must refer the case to the attorney general. Common Cause president Bob Edgar said in a statement Tuesday:

In America, no one is above the law, including Supreme Court justices. For more than a decade, Justice Thomas omitted information about his wife’s income, clearly required by the Ethics in Government Act, from his annual financial disclosure report. Surely such a repeated violation, by someone entrusted to apply laws far more complex than the Ethics Act, at least deserves a formal review by the Judicial Conference and the Attorney General.

Odds are slim that even the Judicial Conference is going to ask Eric Holder to investigate Thomas. But you can’t really fault them for trying. Thomas’s lapses seem egregious enough for some higher authority to take a second look.

Unfortunately, thanks the the separation of powers doctrine, there really isn’t a higher authority when it comes to the Supreme Court. Some members of Congress are trying to change that. Also this week, the Alliance for Justice has been trying to rally support for congressional hearings on a bill introduced earlier this year that would force Supreme Court justices to be covered by the code of conduct that applies to other federal judges and create new procedures for when a justice may have to recuse from hearing a case. Given that virtually no Republicans have signed on, this law, too, has no hope of going anywhere, at least not any time soon. But the Democrats behind it get points for trying anyway.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Justice Clarence Thomas

Michele Bachman is worried that the Renaissance really screwed things up

America Blog

From the LA Times:

It’s the Renaissance, stupid.

The economy is not what ails us today. No, what ails Americans is what Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and their artistic spawn have wrought in the culture, starting 500 years ago. The Renaissance has dragged us all down.

Tea party queen and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is convinced that America is sinking into tyranny. Why? In a remarkable profile of the candidate appearing in the Aug. 15 issue of the New Yorker magazine, the artistic flowering of the Italian Renaissance takes a beating for having done away with the god-fearing Dark Ages.

Yes, America was a happier place in the Middle Ages.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Michele Bachmann

Tea Party Pressuring Schools To Teach Constitution Using Controversial Right-Wing Group’s Materials

There are some really important news stories that seem to stay under the radar of scrutiny in the main stream media.   For the corporate (right-leaning) media perhaps it’s by design. 

The stories may appear in an evening newscast or two but quickly disappear from the usually “days long” news cycles.    This is just one of those many “under the radar” stories…

TPM Muckraker

America’s kids don’t know jack about the Constitution, and according to a national Tea Party group, the only way to save them is to have school’s teach the nation’s founding document with materials provided by a controversial conservative group whose founder is one of Glenn Beck’s favorite historians.

Tea Party Patriots, the Georgia-based organization that counts around 1,000 chapters nationwide, is asking its members to pressure schools to teach the Constitution during Constitution Week in September, as they are required to do by a 2004 law. And when schools do teach the founding document, the group is suggesting that they use materials provided by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, a group that claims the country and Constitution were, “established by the hand of God.”

NCCS’s founder, W. Cleon Skousen, became a tea party favorite in recent years when Glenn Beck touted him on his program as an exemplary constitutional scholar. But Skousen’s past is marred by accusations that his work is far from accurate, and at times rife with racism.

In 1982, critics derided one of Skousen’s books, “The 5,000 Year Leap,” as racist for describing African-Americans as “pickaninnies” and claiming that slave owners were the real victims of slavery. Last year, Princeton Historian Sean Wilentz described the book in The New Yorker as a, “treatise that assembles selective quotations and groundless assertions to claim that the U.S. Constitution is rooted not in the Enlightenment but in the Bible.”

Continue reading…

1 Comment

Filed under Tea Party, Tea Party Agenda

Bloomberg, 2012?

The New Yorker

John B. Anderson, the former Republican congressman from Illinois and 1980 Presidential candidate, said that his mind was “in a whirl,” late last week. Anderson, who now lives in Florida, was a Charlie Crist supporter, and, despite his long-standing disaffection toward the two-party system, he feels no affection for the ascendant Tea Party movement. “I break out in a cold sweat at the thought that any of those people might prevail,” he said. Nationally speaking, Anderson remains an Obama man—for now. “But I’m still fiercely independent, and believe that only an independent might take us to a higher plane,” he said.

On November 4th, Joe Trippi, the Democratic consultant and former campaign manager for Howard Dean, was “cruising down the beach,” as he put it, in Mexico, recuperating. “I would put the odds of an independent candidacy for President in 2012 or 2016 at probably sixty to seventy per cent,” he said. “People make the mistake of saying that this was a big Republican victory. They were the only other option. The question is: Who? It’s not going to be like Ross Perot coming from out of nowhere.” He added, “The White House seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time with Bloomberg, keeping him close.”

So, that again: the maddeningly perennial game of speculating about the next move of New York’s mayor. Last month, the CNBC host Larry Kudlow announced on his show that, according to a “serious insider,” Michael Bloomberg would be the next Treasury Secretary. “The deal has been done,” Kudlow reported, perhaps prematurely. Then, the week before the election, Bloomberg’s grander ambitions were publicly revived by New Yorks John Heilemann, in a cover story titled “2012: How Sarah Barracuda Becomes President.” The scenario, in short: Amid ongoing polarization and a stalled economic recovery, Bloomberg declares his candidacy, wins a handful of coastal states, thereby denying Obama the requisite electoral votes, and the Republican House awards the office to Palin.

Speaking at Harvard, the day before the election, Bloomberg said, “I think, actually, a third-party candidate could run the government easier than a partisan political President,” and then he went on, as he always does, to deny that he intends to pursue the position. He is, as he is fond of saying, Jewish, unmarried, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-immigrant, and pro-gay-marriage. Add to that a strong allegiance to Wall Street, a weekend house in Bermuda, and his vehemence, last summer, in defense of the mosque near Ground Zero, and it’s hard to see how he plays to the populist moment. A recent Marist poll indicates that only twenty-six per cent of New Yorkers favor the prospect of his running.

Yet the dream persists. “I think it’s a strong possibility,” Clay Mulford, the chief operating officer of the National Math and Science Initiative, and, as it happens, Perot’s son-in-law, said the other day. “The mood of the country is not ideological but more practical. The timing is unusually right.” Mulford mentioned that a Google search of his name and Bloomberg’s would reveal that the two of them met, a couple of years ago, to discuss ballot logistics. “His people put the story out,” Mulford said.   Continue reading…

1 Comment

Filed under Michael Bloomberg