The Dangers Of Niche Market Posturing

Considering the fact that The Modern American Right endlessly claim that our country is "Center Right", that we embrace "conservative ideals", and that we need to be fiscally responsible, why the fuck is Rush Limbaugh hawking a pack of iced tea - yeah, you read that right - that they really aren't that secure about peddling?

After teasing it for a few days, Rush Limbaugh made a major announcement on his show Wednesday afternoon. He’s launching “Two If By Tea,” what he calls “the best” sweet tea you’ll ever drink. A picture of “Rush Revere” adorns the bottle, “sounding the warning the liberals are coming.”

“We are doing this for the single reason that we love tea, and we want to share it with you,” Rush explained. “The shrink wrap is a work of art,” Rush said. “You’ll save it … along with the bottles.” Part of the profits will go to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

Can we all say "Tax Write-off"? Yeah, I knew you could.

You'll notice the words "part of the proceeds". Why not all? Is Limbaugh banking on the fact that he can make more money off this if he doesn't have to donate 100%? I'm guessing yes, since there is a NO RETURN policy. After all, I remember his "donation fever" after the "phony soliders" letter of complaint from the US Senate was sold on EBay for $2.1 million ( which Limbaugh matched to obvious maximize his return ).

But let's look at the price - $23.76 per 12-pack.

In most markets, the cost of a 12-pack of beer ( Bud Light ) costs approximately $10.00. The cost of a 12-pack of coke costs approximately $5.00. The cost of 12 McDonald's sweet teas - despite the way they market it is almost half what it would cost you to buy Limbaugh's non-guaranteed bottles of swill.

So who's benefiting from this? Certainly not the consumer - unless they want to drink anything Rush tells them to out of some sense of patriotism. And I would love to see the results of a full audit from the alleged recipients of Rush's "charitable giving" considering how his compatriot Sean Hannity faired with his alleged "Freedom Concerts".

I bet you can say another word - "scam". Yep.

Let's Talk About Me

It was a given that Palin would do this, because it's ultimately all about her anyway. And just a tip for Sean, it's hardly an "exclusive" when she's practically sitting in everyone's lap at Fox"News" on any given day.

So let's get started:



Just to get this out of the way, and as I've said it before, if conservatives don't want this to be about Palin, then they should stop pushing the narrative that it is about her. Also, the Left in America should also be prepared to listen to her clearly coached and couched responses in the metaphorical game of "T-Ball" that she is playing with Sean.

In classic form, and has been the Right Wing narrative du jour in light of what Loughner did in Tuscon, Palin has to make the equivalency argument. If anything is intellectually more dishonest than ignoring the fact that heated and even violent rhetoric - from any side - is without consequence, then that point of view absolutely is. But to follow that canted form of logic all the way through, you didn't hear anyone on the Left talking about "Second Amendment solutions", or have seen anyone from the Left take a gun to a political rally, or even talk about "the blood of tyrants". Those instances are true exclusivities for the modern American Right.

There is something that Palin said - which she initially mentioned in her "blood libel video sermon" - that it's about the message. But that was ultimately lost when she insisted that if her, or Rush, or Hannity were to go silent then America would surely fail because of the loss of "civil" debate. Civility and the modern American Right are mutually exclusive creatures, as anyone who has listened to the noise being vomited up by them can surely understand.



One of the most prominent traits of the modern American Right is that it's never about what they say, but about who does and who doesn't report on it in the fashion that they feel entitled to. Certainly, Palin has come out against violence - as virtually every big name within the Right Wing does when something like this happens - but those reasonable intonements are always drowned out by the bombast and platitudes that boil back up to the surface within days, or even hours, of an event like Tuscon being over.

More to the point, this really isn't about what Palin claims to want, or even what her mouth agape followers claim she believes; nor about what Olbermann, Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck report on, as it's about how Right Wing themes are processed and rationalized by a person as mentally unstable as Loughner. These types of violent actions never happen in a vacuum, something Palin either doesn't understand or isn't willing to admit.



Now we finally see where Palin is uncomfortable - as she rightly should be - when even lightly pressed about her misuse and historical ignorance of the term "blood libel". Rather than speak about why she - or her writing staff, actually - would use such a term, Palin fumbles straight into a diversionary tactic of talk about "timing", and Congress, and what this country "needs". The "timing" of her statement - to my knowledge - has never been an issue with the Left in America, as we are more focused on the message itself.

Moreover, it was apparent to many that Palin's handlers got the "blood libel" talking point directly from the Wall Street Journal - not exactly the bastion of liberalism that Palin seems to be hinting that it is.

Palin seemed less prepared toward the end of the interview. Did she know, or even consider, that Hannity would ask about the "blood libel" portion of her speech? He even read the part where Palin admitted that violent acts can be spurred by the catalyst of heated and violent rhetoric, but she wasn't at all troubled with that being repeated. But in the end, the goal was achieved - at least in reference to those who watched the interview for some sort of validation that Palin is somehow this morally incorruptible and superior creature. Conversely, if you watched this hoping that there would be some new revelation about Palin, her tainted socio-political history, and what will clearly be her future, you didn't get much of anything.

As an aside, I noticed that not once did either Palin or Hannity mention Glenn Beck - a fellow employee at Fox"News" who makes a considerable living doing the things that they claim that the modern American Right doesn't. Was this an unconscious act or do they know that Beck needs to be swept under the carpet right now so people don't pay that much attention to him?

At the end of the day, nothing has changed - not Hannity, not Rush, and most certainly not Palin. I don't want any of them to "sit down and shut up", as they are doing such a wonderful job of proving our points for us.

The Sorry State Sarah's In

In this truncated clip from Hannity, Sarah "I Have A Communications Degree But Have Yet To Use It" Palin is still bitterly clinging to that grudge against Katie Couric for asking her what she reads.



Despite the fact that conservatives are framing this as "media outreach" since she's obviously going to be running for President, I'm wondering if she really wants to start talking about "cleaning up" media. Conservatives have a well recorded history of late in calling everyone but Fox"News" nothing more than "state run media". Is this what Palin is talking about doing? I think it falls just short of that and well within the confines of an approach somewhat akin to to inverse of The Fairness Doctrine. By that, I mean that Palin is wanting more people within various media platforms to essentially play patty-cake with her and her ilk rather than asking relevant questions.

Decision Flexible

It's not surprising that Bush's book has themes and passages lifted from previous writings that lauded him as a great leader.

It also comes as no surprise that Bush's book - was it even written by him? - is being recognized as a "best seller", considering conservative authors rely on bulk purchasing to further the narrative the America actually buys into such nonsense.

And it should come as a shock to no one that Fox"News" is going to give Bush a multimedia handjob as often and as fervent as they can. But when they say he's "the boss", then one has to look at what they consider a successful "boss" to be.

Here's Hannity offering yet another dose of his man-love for W.



Seems that Fox, and apparently their viewership, think a "real boss" displays these qualities and runs his "business" like this:

- Taking credit for the successes of others

- Failing at literally every level of his private sector business attempts

- Ignoring a glaring warning of a threat against our nation

- Isn't concerned with the leadership of those that attacked us on Sept. 11th

- Presided over an administration that is responsible for a "bailout" that is now attributed to Obama and Democrats

- Increased the national debt by trillions in less than 10 years

Is that the type of "boss" you want?

Soak The Rich Or Hose The Middle Class?

Rand Paul's sense of economic history ( both recent and no so ) is contorted to the point that he won't even comprehend why his standpoint is irrelevant.

Skip ahead to 4:04 for the key bit.



Let's take a close look at this.

During the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. During Nixon it was 70%, and under Clinton - when we had great economic prosperity even despite conservative Republicans attempts to shit down government and block almost everything Democrats did - it was 39.6%. And conservatives call this "tyranny"?

Is it that conservatives want their entitlement programs but not have to pay for them? Is it that they honestly believed that the Bush Tax Cuts actually benefited the American economy? According to a recent report, those tax cuts actually resulted in a net loss of income to the tune of $2.74 Trillion dollars, added $500 billion to the deficit last year - and will have an exponential effect should they be made permanent, and cost two and a half time more than Healthcare reform.

So who's getting soaked, Rand?

From all the talking points being leveled at us by people like Paul, Hannity, and a host of other people completely misrepresenting reality, we are to believe that the top 1% earners in America were given these tax breaks in order for them to reinvest into the economy. Funny, I don't recall that actually having a very good turnout now that I look back on it.

Who's Really Afraid

Skip ahead to right around the 4:00 mark for Palin's description of how she and other conservatives feel they are treated.



I can't help but hear the average conservative responding to this had Obama said it; that's he's "whining". But the irony of Palin's statements of people being "limp" and "impotent" isn't lost on many of us, considering the fact that she almost refuses to leave the carefully orchestrated confines of Fox"News" unless she's getting paid to make some meandering speech for an exclusively conservative audience.

And isn't it reflective of what the modern conservative movement stands for that Palin would opt to use rhetoric that creates the picture that conservatives are "more of a man than you are". Seriously, the school-yard taunts from Palin and her easily lead followers has just about hit rock bottom.

As an aside, there a part of me that really wants Palin to run for President. Not because I know that Fox"News" will be there holding her hand the whole way, but to see if conservatives really are so blinded by their own ignorance to actually vote for her. It would certainly be a very interesting campaign to watch - seeing which conservatives have the "cojones" to stick with Palin all the way to the voting booth.

Late To The Party - Again

So, after mulling it over for a few hours last night and this morning, I'm actually going to give my few cents on Rep. Weiner's best impersonation of a British Parliamentarian for the CSPAN audience.



But it didn't stop there, as King and Weiner were on Hannity's radio program not long after the two were interviewed on Fox"News".



And while conservatives - from Limbaugh's specious theories to Michelle Malkin's sidekick invoking former Soviet rulers on down to Allahpundit's all too predictable, faux-intellectual, analysis of the moment - are more than willing to spin any direction they can to get away from the very simple fact that they refused to help those they they claim to idolize, it shouldn't come as a surprise that these are the same people that invoke the deaths of nearly 3000 people as often as most of them brush their teeth.

It's become reflexive nature for conservative Republicans to block any and everything a Democrat does - be they liberal, progressive, moderate, or even one of the alleged "Blue Dogs". This, to me at least, is the moment where it's really turned around on them and shown them for who they really are.

If you take a look at what Limbaugh and Allahpundit had to say about this, you'll notice that they are framing this episode as Democrats trying to shove in amendments regarding immigration when, in point of fact, this was about preventing Republicans from larding up the bill with what Karoli at Crooks And Liars calls "poison pill amendments". And that's precisely what they would have done. Democrats tossed up what should have been an easy ball for Republicans to hit out of the park and since they didn't get to manipulate the outcome, they opted to hurl the bat into the stands and run off to the dugout and cry.

The various aspects of this legislation and how conservatives screwed it up ( again ) aside, I think that it's high time that Weiner let his passion be shown. Conservatives can't handle the fact that Democrats have that fire for their country burning inside them, so their only option is to paint their opposition as completely unhinged lunatics. Sure, it works for their base, but it doesn't extend beyond that. Unfortunately, that's far too often all the traction that the meme du jour needs - the right conservative parroting something that ultimately amounts to nothing. How do you think Andrew Breitbart has made it as far as he has?

It's a shame that not more Democratic Representatives don't have Mr. Weiner's passion.

Not Seeing Is Apparently Still Believing

We are, by and large, a visual culture. We thrive on being able to "see" something in order to believe that it's not only true but that it is in important to us. This aspect of our existence has taken a very peculiar turn in recent years, as many of us are relying heavily on what others tell us is or isn't there. Many of us are no longer "seeing" what is actually around us but are merely "believing" what we are being told is there.

Early this morning Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight had a post that clearly illustrated this point as it relates to the alleged "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City - Cordoba House. And while this is not specifically a "mosque" and most certainly NOT at "Ground Zero", the perceptions of far too many have been distorted by the likes of Fox"News" as far back as May, but has been disseminated throughout the conservative blogging realm by the likes of Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, to Sarah Palin.

Those that are against this Muslim center seem to be ignoring not only the facts surrounding it, but the realities of other buildings that are near "Ground Zero" that you can't see right away.

Recently, I came across a posting at Bob Cesca's blog that talked about a strip0-club that was located the same approximate distance that Cordoba House would be located from the former site of WTC Towers 1 and 2. And as the author of the piece rightly points out, where is the outrage surrounding the "exploitation of women" near such hallowed ground?

I can almost hear conservatives complaints that strippers and Muslims can't be compared, but I think this is also a matter of perception versus perspective. Not all strippers are coked-up floozies that take drugs and leave their children in seedy hotel rooms while they turn tricks and spread diseases. Likewise, not all Muslims are willing to strap a bomb vest on and charge into a building filled with children and blow the structure into dust in order to further their religious beliefs.

Modern American thought, and most certainly that since Sept. 11th 2001, toward Islamic faith is that everyone that practices it hates America and all that dwell within her borders. To be blunt, this is a complete load of shit. The ironic flip side to this is that modern American thought, most expressly shown by the conservative movement of the 21 century, is that Christianity is pure and untarnished, even though this is the religion that is used to excuse all manner of actions against gays, lesbians, members of other religions, or even how the average American - regardless of specific orientation - is treated do they not follow the socio-political guidelines of conservative teachings.

Conservatives of the modern era have become more and more susceptible to openly and unflinchingly embracing misleading information and outright lies surrounding a variety of subjects. This is troubling because their vision is being obscured by those they are framing the narrative they are following. Why is it that conservatives lack the ability to walk around their world and look at what is really there? I'm sure they would find that much of what they are being told doesn't match up with what they see.

As an aside, one can but wonder how people like Malkin, Hannity, or Palin would react if a Baptist church was build just a few blocks from a Planned Parenthood building that was attacked by an unhinged conservative.

Lingustic Spin

Some conservatives are coming to Palin's defense regarding her inability to use the English language.

This won’t hurt her with her base, of course — few things ever do, least of all the sort of vocab mistake to which millions of people can relate. All it’ll do is further prove her unpretentious populist authenticity.

"Populist authenticity"? Really?

Of course, this isn't the first time that Palin has used the made-up word, as Mediaite shows in a clip from Hannity on Fox"News"



And while Mediaite not only showcased Palin's premiere of the new term, they also reported that the tweet that garnered all the attention was deleted. Kind of puts a dent in the follow-up where she compared herself to Shakespeare. If she's going to "celebrate" her ability to molest the English language, one would think that she wouldn't be so ashamed of her word-salad dribblings.

I will concede that almost all pundits, politicians, and just about every average citizen makes mistakes like this. However, a woman like Palin - whom conservatives continually lionize as a woman of multiple talents who is allegedly smarter than Obama - makes these sort of mistakes ALL THE TIME.

Just take a look at her mangling of her native language in this clip.



Conservatives will defend anything this woman does or says, no matter how blatantly ignorant she acts. And these are the people that say that everyone in America should be able to speak English.

Racial Ignorance Of The Right

Full credit to my dear Twitter pal GottaLaff for some further material for this post.

--------------------------------------------

So there's absolutely no racism within the Tea Party or any facet of the conservative movement - none? Really?

What about this?



.....or this, from a man who is directly attributing his "success" to the Tea Baggers?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

...........what about this, or this, this, this, this, this, this, or a host of other perfect examples.

So what do Fox"News" favorites Sean Hannity and Sarah "I can barely finish anything I've started unless I'm paid A LOT" Palin have to say about this?



There's is this palatable and oddly humorous shade of irony in Sean Hannity calling for people to completely ignore the well-documented racial animus within the Tea Bagger crowd since he was the one thathosted Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" on this program to provide covering fire for him when he dropped the dreaded N-bomb in a way that would make even Mel Gibson genuflect in horror.

But let's look at Palin's framing of this.......

She's essentially framing her thesis that the Tea Party shouldn't be held accountable because they see Obama as either "not white enough" or "just black enough that he scares us". Does it get any clearer than this?

The greater point of all of this is that NO ONE within the conservative movement are distancing themselves in any fashion from the clearly defined racism, racial animus, and race-baiting from the Tea Baggers simply because it would require them to do something that they continually espouse but virtually never do - hold people accountable.

Should Have Done Some Research

Conservatives have a serious problem with fact-checking before they start speaking.





Those "booms" that Palin and Hannity are speaking about weren't used because they failed quality control tests.

“There were concerns with material and end connectors,” LaBrec said. “BP has inspectors who visit facilities and regularly test boom. In addition to testing boom from new suppliers, boom from existing manufacturers is also tested/inspected. The Coast Guard also inspects boom that we purchase from suppliers. It is important because poorly designed boom may not work as intended.”

Listening to NPR yesterday afternoon, I heard a report that many of the booms already in place are being overrun by waves and actually washing up on beaches and not performing as they should. Why are Hannity and Palin so certain that these booms from Maine will behave any differently?

And to address O'Reilly's boast that Palin has effectively dealt with oil companies prior to quitting her post as Governor of Alaska, reports are coming in that the BP oil field in Alaska are facing serious problems.

According to internal BP documents obtained by Truthout, and after interviewing more than a dozen employees over the past month, the Prudhoe Bay oil field, in a remote corner of North America on Alaska's north shore, is in danger.

After two serious oil spills and other mishaps, the BP employees fingered a long list of safety issues that have not been adequately addressed, making the Prudhoe Bay oilfield vulnerable to a devastating accident that potentially could rival the havoc in the Gulf.

But I thought Palin had that all under control when she left office. Will she address this or even be asked by her adoring fanbase? Don't hold your breath.

Faking Your Beliefs

Is S. E. Cupp trying to be a conservative Daria?



Wait, I thought she was an atheist. Why, all of a sudden, is she defending religion? Oh, that's right, she's trying to peddle some screed that she penned in order to get face-time on Hannity's program. Talk about someone that can't stand by their convictions. As they say, everyone can be bought for the right price.

The Arizona Fallout

I think that's an apt title, considering prominent conservatives and former Bush officials aren't exactly cozy with the idea. But then, there are others who hint that we should actually take a more hardline approach - as if the new law in Arizona doesn't make America look bad enough.

Here's something that Arizona's governor might not understand - she has just put her state on the path to economic ruin.

From a tourism aspect ( from both Mexico and within the United States ) this law is disastrous from the start. Considering that amount of revenue that state brings in from people travelling just to see sporting events is incentive enough to not have a law this draconian.

And it's more than just tourism that's going to be effected. Companies that do business with Arizona and ship goods into the state are already looking at boycotts. It's a domino effect that conservatives are largely ignoring. So what do conservatives think of this bill, while they ignore it's far-reaching implications? Why not ask resident spokesmodel Caribou Barbie:



So despite what Karl Rove says and thinks of the new immigration law in Arizona, full time PR pornstar Sarah Palin still has to prove she's all "mavericky" and junk by insisting this law isn't something that it clearly is.

But conservatives ( and that includes Fox"News" ) aren't staying on message with this issue like one might expect them to. Even Marco Rubio ( the conservative movements new poster boy, now that Scott Brown was proven to be a dud ) says he has concerns with the law. There is a definite and palpable rift forming amongst that Republican party. One side wants to appear tough on immigration while the other is trying to hold onto as many votes as they can.

So what do local law enforce officials have to say?

Here's Tuscon Police Chief Roberto Villasenor yesterday afternoon on NPR:

It's going to cause some concerns for us. As a local law enforcement chief taking on the responsibility of federal immigration enforcement is something that we really don't have the resources to accomplish. And so that's one of the concerns we have. And also, I think that there's really not enough definition of what the requirements are going to be for local law enforcement in this regard, and there are some definitions that the governor has tasked our Arizona state agency, Arizona post to define what reasonable suspicion will look like in regards to this law.

Who are you going to believe then - A law enforcement official who sees that the application of this law is going to be hurtful to his fellow officers and the citizenry of Arizona and any non-white person that happens to be visiting or Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity?

One final aspect of this story that the major media outlets are reporting on ( yet ) is that the author of the new immigration law has very close ties to Neo-Nazis. Yeah, he's the guy we want writing immigration laws.

Breitbarts Blubbery Rage : Part 7432

Is that the chick from China Beach in the lower right-hand corner? Who is that?



Well, nevermind her.

Let's take a look at a couple of things Breitbart is blubbering about.

First off, has anyone notice that Saul Alinsky was never a concern of the conservative movement until Obama pretty much had the election clinched in 2008? I can't recall one instance in the years prior hearing Fox"News" or conservative bloggers or beltway pundits talking about him. Seems there's a great deal of projection going on in that regard.

Secondly, justifying racial animus by claiming that it's not you but THEM that are propagating it does seem a bit typical and predictable. After all, having seen people like this and seeing signs like this, you do tend to be skeptical of the claim that there are no racist amongst the Tea Baggers.

This very idea that people like Breitbart are not admitting the obvious and not distancing themselves from this hate speech and racial divisiveness, that they think by not having a sense of accountability - something that conservatives continually preach but completely fail in on a daily basis, they can say whatever they want and get away with it. This isn't just about Fox"News" - the PR arm of the Tea Bagger movement - but the media at large ( save a few select members ) are not taking conservatives to task and demanding that conservatives explain why they are allowing racial hate speech to continue.

I guess it's ok to denounce "truthers" within the movement but not racists.

And The Dish Ran Away With The Loon

The Palin/Bachmann "We're Crazy Doncha Know" gathering somehow drew an alleged 10,000 people today.

GOP officials say they have distributed 10,000 tickets to the event being held at the Minneapolis Convention Center at 2 p.m. CT/ 3 p.m. ET according to a report from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Tickets to the afternoon rally are free, but admission to a subsequent "Private Reception with Photo Opportunity" with Bachmann and Palin will cost attendees up to $10,000.

In a fundraising e-mail sent out Wednesday morning, Bachmann alerted her supporters that coverage of the rally will be streaming live on her website and that Fox News' Sean Hannity will be on site for the occasion.

Oh, of course Hannity would be there. Not only to cozy up with two of the goofiest ladies on the planet, but to continue to pimp his falsehood laden screed "Conservative Victory".

If true that there were 10,000 in attendance, I hope the children of these people have the foresight enough to get out of the house as soon as possible.

Of Books, Back Scratches, And Media

A recent email sent out by Chairman Micheal Steele as part of offical RNC message shows that there really isn't a difference between the RNC and Fox"News".

Dear XXXX,

I wanted to let you know that I just finished reading Sean Hannity's new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda. As they so often do, Sean's words left me energized for November and even more committed to making the gains necessary to bring the Obama agenda to a halt.

In the book, Sean does more than just tell us why we need to defeat the Obama Agenda. He also gives us a blueprint for getting it done. I cannot recommend it enough -- and I'm confident that, like me, you will be ready for the upcoming elections with a renewed commitment.

Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Normally, when a prominent conservative writes ( or has written for them ) a new book, there are several bulk purchases made to pass out at conventions, to give away free when you join sites like Townhall.com, and to over inflate actual sales so the book will debut at #1 on the NYT Bestseller List.

And while Steele's email certainly urges to recipient to read Hannity's latest offering, there really isn't a direct call to purchase the book. Still, to have a piece of propaganda clearly and loudly supported by the RNC, a book that was penned by one of the loudest voices on Fox"News", you get the sense that Steele and the RNC aren't exactly trying to hide the fact that Fox is their preferred "news" organization.

But who is actually taking the lead in this situation? Does Fox"News" work for the RNC, or do they work for Fox?

And Starting For The Defense Pt. II

In which we find Michelle Malkin using her "love" for the American military to defend "Freedom Alliance" and Sean Hannity. Turns out that she's really missing the point on this and should use her "journalistic" skills to dig deeper into this - you know, like she does when she attacks children.

Recently, a story that has been around for nearly three years, has finally gained traction within the conservative realm, and blogger and passionate conservative Debbie Schlussel has rightfully pointed out that Sean Hannity and "Freedom Alliance" are using the image of the American military to steal money from concert-goers.

This has not set well with conservatives that want to use the military as a shield ( and we know what they say about shields ) so they are claiming that this story has been completely and thoroughly debunked. Too bad this isn't true. Let's that a look at the source cited and the reality behind it.

Malkin dives headlong into the shallow end of the pool from the start:

I had the honor of speaking at one of Oliver North’s Freedom Alliance events in 2002 about immigration and national security. While there, I met Shannon Spann, the widow of American hero Johnny “Mike” Spann — the 32-year-old CIA officer and former Marine Corps artillery specialist who was the first American killed in action during our war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Spann was killed in a prison riot where Jihad Johnny Lindh, the American Taliban, was captured. Spann had interrogated Lindh prior to the revolt; Lindh chose to hide the riot plans from his fellow American. Spann died in the violence. His family recounted his bravery after a visit overseas to the fortress where he died...

You see, plenty of flag-sucking and "look how much I love a soldier" she uses right in the first paragraph. It's disgusting how this woman presents herself. If she's so honored to be part of this country, then why isn't she fighting the Taliban herself? Certainly, this would be a question posed to those on the Left, but I feel that Malkin should answer this as well, considering the way she continually molests the corpses of our soldiers.

She continued her hamfisted defense of "Freedom Alliance" by pointing out that just because they honored a dead soldier that THAT is one of the signifiers that should absolve them of any wrong-doing.

But here is where her piece really gets good:

My Fox News colleague and friend Sean Hannity has devoted countless hours helping the Freedom Alliance — which has a four-star rating from Charity Navigator – raise money for the dependent children of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have been killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. The charity funds scholarships to students who have lost a parent on the battlefield in Persian Gulf War, the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and the Pentagon. Sean has hosted Freedom Concerts across the country and helped raise millions for troops and their families...

And while Malkin offers up the "star rating" of this group, the numbers don't seem to jive with what the "Freedom Concerts" are intended to do. And while I am not the best person to analyze the numbers on this, they don't really seem to reflect the image that Malkin is presenting - an organization that is more about helping people than turning a profit. Anyone that knows how to properly break down the dollar figures linked, please do so and I will gladly update this diary accordingly.

But the juice in Malkin's lemon comes with this portion:

Unhinged smear-mongering spread on the Internet today — and it has been swiftly and definitively debunked and deconstructed.

Her "debunked" and "deconstructed" theme comes from non-other than "Freedom Alliance". Am I the only one that recalls conservatives complaining that ACORN had an internal review done to clear their name of any wrong-doing. So why is Malkin so eager to laud "Freedom Alliance" for taking part in the same action?

Instead of taking that route, let's examine this "debunking".

Freedom Alliance’s press release today stated categorically that they have “never provided planes, hotels, cars, limos, or anything else to Sean [Hannity] … to be clear Sean pays for all his own transportation, hotels, and all related expenses for himself and his family and friends and staff.” We are satisfied that this is true.

It is true that Freedom Alliance spent $60,000 on aviation services in 2006, but there is no evidence that this was for Sean Hannity’s benefit, and it seems unlikely that the money was used to lease a Gulfstream 5. Rates for G5 aircraft average around $8,000 an hour. $60,000 would not buy much at that rate.

We have also been able to confirm that Sean Hannity has no operational control over the organization. Nor is he even a member of the group’s board.

So what have we got? "Freedom Alliance" says that this isn't true, but can't provide any actionable information that Hannity pays for his own trips other than their own word. That's like saying you didn't take a cookie form the jar when there are 8 missing and expecting your mother to take you at your word.

And then there is the "aviation expense" line that uses the example of how much it costs to lease a G5. Who said that Hannity ( or anyone ) used a G5? He could have flown business class, or had another type private jet. I'm sure that Hannity has his travel standards, but there is nothing in the "Freedom Alliance" response that proves unequivocally that the claim made by Schlussel isn't true.

This next piece almost made me puke.

FrumForum has intensively investigated Freedom Alliance’s 990 Forms, which have been submitted to the IRS and checked by an independent auditor.

Debbie Schlussel alleges that only $1 million of the organization’s $8.8 million in revenue was going to soldiers and scholarships in 2008. This figure is the product of a misleading and selective reading of the organization’s tax forms.

The numbers that Schlussel cite refer to direct financial transfers to individuals – that is, if there is a direct grant that Freedom Alliance gives to a soldier. This does not include all the positive work that doesn’t involve a direct grant.

Freedom Alliance also spends money on non-cash benefits for military families, involving things like taking soldiers to sporting events and sending care packages to troops.

The highest paid employee earned $152,000 in 2006. The second highest paid employee earned $83,000. In 2007, Freedom Alliance spent about $1 in $7 on salary and benefits.

Total staffing costs may seem high, but they are not out of line with what is spent at many other charities. For example, the Armed Services branch of the YMCA spent about $1 in $2 on salaries and benefits in 2008.

Because we all know that buying a ticket to watch the Cubs get their asses spanked is on par with sending a child to college. The later claim that the Armed Services branch of the YMCA is disproportionately large seems to be somewhat misplaced. Does "Freedom Alliance" think that military personnel are over-paid?

Let's continue.

Schlussel is unhappy with “the fact that in each year’s tax returns soldiers described as having brain trauma injuries, multiple amputated limbs, and severe burns over most of their bodies get a few hundred bucks each from Freedom Alliance and in almost every case, no more than $1,000.”

However, this accusation is much weaker when you examine the Department of Defense regulations regarding donations to active duty soldiers.

According to the DOD Joint Ethics Regulation, gifts with a value of over $1,000 must go through a lengthy bureaucratic process which involves ethics officials. Calls to the Department of Defense confirmed this point.

What becomes clear is that there is a bureaucratic process to get approval from an ethics official, and that the costs of working through the bureaucracy for this purpose may want to be avoided by a charity, especially one that is working in a lot of other areas.

Schlussel also decries Freedom Alliance donations of less than $1,000, complaining for example that Freedom Alliance only gave $200 to a serviceman who lost both legs and his left arm. FrumForum has determined that lower-value grants like these are approved for specific purposes, often requested by a DOD case officer. This applies to cases where, for example, a serviceman may need a bus ticket home to visit his family.

The sums may seem small, but a soldier who is already receiving a government benefit may greatly value an airline ticket that goes above and beyond the Department of Defense’s budget.

Sure, the soldier may be receiving assistance from the government, but if he looks like the poor soul from Metallica's One video, I'm pretty sure that an economy-class ticket from Baghdad to Scranton isn't going to make his family feel any better when they see "Freedom Alliance" spending all this money to bring Billy Ray Cyrus to St. Louis to play some hackneyed songs for people like this.

These statements might as well read like this: We didn't want to fill out that extra form so we would pocket the balance. And the "Freedom Alliance" cash register goes "CHA CHING"!

After all, nothing says "patriot" like sending your disfigured son/daughter home on the cheap and reminding them to watch Fox"News".

Schlussel complains that “167 students got an average of just $4,803.89 each in tuition. With the amount this charity raises, these kids should all be getting a free ride paid for by Freedom Alliance.”

The scholarships that she is referring to are considered and approved annually, meaning that a freshman can qualify for about $20,000 over four years.

Further, $4,800 covers more than a year’s tuition at an average Catholic private school and a substantial portion of tuition at many colleges. For example, it nearly covers a year’s tuition at the University of Georgia ($4,900), and covers about a third of a year’s tuition at the University of Michigan ($11,600 for freshmen, $13,000 for upper-classmen).

Overall, Freedom Alliance raised $2.1 million for scholarships in 2008. About $800,000 of that went to scholarships for that year. Schlussel claims that the remainder, “$1,238,636 – all of which was supposed to go to scholarships for these kids of the fallen – went to Freedom Alliance.”

FrumForum was able to confirm with Freedom Alliance that the $1.2 million that Schlussel cites did not go into the general Freedom Alliance revenues, but instead to the organization’s Scholarship Trust Fund.

Why didn’t Freedom Alliance spend all of its $2.1 million on scholarships that year? Considering your average active duty combat soldier is in his mid-20s, many fallen soldiers have children that are not of age to go to college. Saving a substantial part of funds is simply good planning – the process of funding children of the fallen will continue for fifteen to twenty years. The organization’s trust fund now stands at around $15 million.

This part really get my rage at near rolling boil. They might as well be saying that since your kid isn't of "college age" that you and your family don't count. But even though they offer the final "we're holding the money for your kids until later", where's the guarantee that they are going to be able to use that money for school? Why isn't this deposited into t savings account for the child so that it can accrue interest, to grow? Am I the only one that thinks 6 month old Shelly or Steven are going to get screwed on this deal?

In the end, I don't think there is a clearer picture of how people like Hannity, North, and Malkin are using the military for their own gain. It's beyond disgusting and further proof that these people are a disgrace to the country and the human race.

The Cost Of Freedom

I've pointed out before that Sean Hannity's alleged "Freedom Concerts" aren't exactly what they seem. Now, conservatives are catching up to this blatant use of the troops for partisan, political, gain.

...less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferret the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Huffington Post has picked up on this story that I initially saw over at Daily Kos over 2 years ago. What's taken people so long to actually tackle this issue?

Conservatives love to use the military as a stick with which to beat people into submission so they don't have to defend their own ideological failings. And Sean Hannity has got a lot of people in on this - namely Oliver North - and they are all complicit in using the lives of not only American soldiers but of their families as well.

Let's see how the other "troop loving" conservatives take on this issue. Malkin, Morrissey, Allahpundit - I'm looking at you three in particular.

Taking Over Their Own House

But I thought that Palin said to "chose" a party, not take one over.



The Reagan worship aside, Palin and Hannity don't seem to realize that Tea Bagger candidates haven't done so well. Doug Hoffman lost and Debra Medina is a "Truther". Christie and McDonnell don't align themselves with the Tea Baggers. Scott Brown was a complete wash - given his activities since taking Ted Kennedy's old seat. So, who are these people going to run?

J.D. Hayworth is an unofficially Tea Bagger candidate, and has the support of people like Orly Taitz, since Hayworth threw his hat into the "Birther" ring with a unique take on why Obama should produce his birth certificate. And with conservatives turning their backs on McCain ( again, as they really didn't support him once he won the party nomination. They were just pissed that they voted for him so they wouldn't have to either not vote or vote for Obama ) Hayworth has a good chance of getting a seat in the Senate. That is, unless McCain can just win on legacy or Hayworth does something monumentally stupid.

And that's the point, the fringe nature of the Tea Bagger cult doesn't really lend itself to fixing or improving the aspects of the country that they claim are in such a state of disarray. So Palin's assertion that the Tea Baggers should somehow "take over" the GOP is a statement that sounds good, sound viable, but is ultimately just that - a statement that sounds good and will boost morale within your base.

The reality of this is that the Tea Baggers know they have nowhere to go unless they can create the illusion that they have the ability to rebrand the GOP or toss out everyone already there. They can't form a "third party", as they will split the GOP vote and Democrats will gain more ground and be in power longer. And there's a good chance of that already. Maybe not so much in this first mid-term election, but the Dems have at least a small chance to maintain a majority in both houses.

This Was To Be Expected

And right on cue....



For starters, O'Reilly and Rove have no way of backing up their assertions that the poll is a fraud ( Nate Silver thinks it's legit ) and rely on largely on diminishing the very real aspects of what Daily Kos is. It's standard Fox"News", O'Reilly, schtick - hurl school-yard invective at your target - and what's with Rove stating that a higher ratio of "curse words" invalidates a legitimately researched poll? But doesn't O'Reilly realize that the people he identifies with, even the people he works with, fit precisely into what this poll shows?







Gee, I wonder why Republicans think the way they do?