Rand Paul Has A Friend At Time

Republican Rand Paul certainly seems to be riding an extended wave of glowing press coverage, as reporters and commentators line up to dub the Kentucky senator a deeply fascinating man.   From Politico:  "Rand Paul, The Most Interesting Man in Politics." The Washington Post: "Rand Paul Is The Most Interesting Man In The (Political) World" And now this week's cover story from Time: "The Most Interesting Man In Politics." What the supportive Paul coverage lacks in originality, it makes up for in passion and admiration. We've learned Paul represents "the most interesting voice in the GOP right now." He boasts a "supple mind" and is a "preternaturally confident speaker." And from Time, Paul spoke to a recent crowd "with the enthusiasm of a graduate student in the early rapture of ideas." There appears to be such a media rush to toast Paul as a Republican freethinker that the feel-good coverage sometimes confuses what he actually stands for. Note that Politico claimed the senator's "instinctive libertarianism, meanwhile, plays well with America's pro-pot, pro-gay marriage younger generation." Fact: Paul opposes gay marriage. Nonetheless, the glowing press clips pile up, with Time's cover story representing the most recent entry. In April 2013, the Kentucky senator graced Time's cover when he was dubbed one of the 100 Most Influential people in the World. (Paul's entry was written by Sarah Palin, who declared that his "brand of libertarian-leaning conservatism attracts young voters.")  What's especially odd about Time's most recent salute is that the magazine essentially published the same laudatory Rand Paul feature last year. It marveled at his political rise and suggested he might change the course of the GOP ("Can he reshape [the] party"), which is precisely what this week's cover story is about. ("Can he fix what ails the GOP?") Time is hardly alone in terms of showering Paul with attention. Between two recent features, The New Yorker and New York Times Magazine dedicated nearly 18,000 words to the senator. But there's something about Time's supportive Paul coverage that stands out. Indeed, the publication has morphed into something of a national cheering section for the Kentucky Republican, obediently covering his appearances, typing up as news his attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton, and publishing his first-person essays.

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 10:09 am

Hundreds Protest George Will Speech As He Defends Campus Rape Comments

Several hundred students reportedly protested George Will's speech last night at Miami University in response to his claim that efforts to fight sexual assault have made "victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges" on college campuses. Will, whose column is distributed by the Washington Post News Service and Syndicate, has been criticized by U.S. senators, media, and women's equality groups since the publication of his "coveted status" piece on June 6. Will has been making similar comments for more than two decades. The columnist's appearance at the Oxford, Ohio, campus -- for which he received $48,000 -- became the subject of controversy over the last week. Nearly 1,200 students, faculty, and staff signed a letter stating that hosting Will "sends the wrong message to current students, prospective students, and their families about the tolerance of rape culture and predatory sexual behavior at Miami University," according to the Miami University Women's Center. The speech also drew criticism from professors at the school's Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies program and the national women's rights group UltraViolet. While protesters outside the Farmer School of Business event were denouncing Will's appearance and discussing their experiences with sexual assault on campus, inside, Will was defending his column from student critics. According to The Cincinnati Enquirer: In response to the student Will said many have misconstrued the points in his column but acknowledged the controversy, saying "I've written columns since 1973, but the one you are talking about has certainly gotten the attention of this campus." In response, Will defended his column and criticized "the dubious sociology" of ill-defined federal definitions of sexual assault that he contends diminishes the legal rights of the overwhelmingly male defendants assumed "guilty until proven innocent" under the new laws. A second student who asked about Will about his column, who identified herself as a victim of sexual assault, subsequently told Cincinnati's WLWT: She said she asked Will about his comments concerning the cost of treatment for sexual assault victims. "He replied in a series of non-finished sentences at which point I said, 'I have specifically received treatment and is it worth it?' and he said, 'Yes, it is, but only for real survivors of real rape,' and it was very diminishing and deterring my ability to talk about it," she said. Watch this report on the protests from Cincinnati's WCPO: Here are some images from the protest, courtesy of the Facebook page of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program:

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 9:45 am

Chuck Todd On Media Sexism And "Disease" Of "Fatigue" Toward Hillary Clinton

Chuck Todd hopes the media has "grown up" and will avoid sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton's potential 2016 presidential run. In the final installment of Media Matters' three-part interview series with Todd, the new Meet the Press host discusses the challenges facing media outlets covering a possible Clinton White House bid. During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton faced near-constant sexism from the press. Asked whether things might be different if Clinton chooses to run in 2016, Todd explained he'd "like to think the media's grown up about that." Nonetheless, he cautioned, "Identity politics can sometimes bring out the worst in people on the left and right." According to Todd, the Clintons' decades-long presence in the public eye presents challenges for both her potential campaign and for reporters that might eventually cover it. In a September interview with PBS host Charlie Rose, Todd said that the press often misrepresents the idea that there is a "Clinton fatigue problem," explaining that the "fatigue" actually rests with the press and not people in the Democratic Party, with whom the former secretary of state is very popular. Todd expanded on those comments to Media Matters, saying that media outlets need to avoid "'been there, done that' disease." Todd said that outlets need to utilize their long history of covering Clinton while being wary of "preconceived notions" and employing a "fresh set of eyes." Clinton herself recently lamented the tendency of the press to focus on "the best angle, quickest hit, the biggest embarrassment" at the expense of more substantive news. Todd agreed with Clinton, saying that "what gets the attention and what gets clicks" for political reporters is "the gotcha moment." But he added that "the media isn't doing it on their own." Pointing to the proliferation of opposition research on both sides, Todd said that while it used to be utilized by the press merely to highlight hypocrisy, it's turned into "where's every negative thing I can find." "So it doesn't matter how responsible 70 percent of the journalism community is," Todd said. "There's always a 30 percent chunk that is willing to just take whatever's handed them." He added, "it doesn't matter if the mainstream media is responsible when you have the 10,000 other outlets to get below-the-belt stuff out, right?" The first part of the interview series covered Todd's thoughts on the media's handling of scandals and crises. Part two focused on Todd's goals for Meet the Press. Relevant transcript from Todd's Media Matters interview has been published with each part. Answers covered in part three are below:

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 9:07 am

Fox Hosts Lash Out At Media Matters Following Widespread Criticism For Discouraging Voters

Fox News hosts are lashing out at Media Matters amid widespread condemnation after its hosts argued that young women were too ignorant to vote or serve on jury duty. Host Kimberly Guilfoyle came under fire after arguing that the reason young women don't vote for conservatives is "the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea -- they don't get it," adding that she would automatically exclude them from being on a jury so they can "go back on Tinder or Match.com." As Huffington Post's Catherine Taibi pointed out, not only is Guilfoyle's argument a "terrible -- and illogical -- idea to convince young people not to vote," but it's also categorically incorrect. Salon's Jenny Kutner wrote that while young women may "be healthy and hot, and possibly even running around, it's doubtful they're all without a care in the world" as Guilfoyle suggested.

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 9:06 am

Fox's Bernie Goldberg: "Facts Mean Something Totally Different" To "Black Liberals" In Michael Brown Shooting

From the October 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:Related: Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion Previously: Fox's Tantaros: Eric Holder Runs The Justice Department "Like The Black Panthers Would" Fox's Bolling Doubts Eric Holder Can "Be Fair And Balanced" On "A Race Case" Like Michael Brown Shooting Conservative Media Race-Baiting: Ferguson Edition

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 8:32 am

The People Conservative Media Don't Want To Vote

As the 2014 midterm election draws near, right-wing media figures have worked to discourage certain groups of people from voting, claiming some are too dumb to make an informed decision. But this isn't new -- conservatives have long advocated for onerous voter ID laws and even prerequisite civics tests, policies that work to suppress the vote, even going so far as to say that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Media Matters looked back at the citizens conservative media have deemed unworthy of voting:

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 8:18 am

Fox News Attacks Chuck Todd For Calling Out Fox's Media Bias "Obsession" In Media Matters Interview

From the October 23 edition of Fox News' The Five:Previously: Chuck Todd On Media Sexism And "Disease" Of "Fatigue" Toward Hillary Clinton Chuck Todd Explains The Meet The Press "Balancing Act" And How Diversity Is A "Front-Burner Issue Chuck Todd Dishes On How Media Cover Scandals And Crises

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 4:51 am

MSNBC's Alex Wagner Calls Out "Ludicrous" Fear Mongering Over Subpoenas Of Houston Pastors

From the October 23 edition of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner:Previously: O'Reilly: Federal Rulings Legalizing Gay Marriage Have Emboldened Houston Mayor To "Run Roughshod Over The Constitution" Another Fox News Lie About The Subpoenas Of Houston's Anti-Gay Pastors No, The City Of Houston Isn't Bullying Anti-Gay Pastors - This Is Basic Lawyering

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 4:48 am

Conservative Media Use Benghazi Hoax To Attack Obama Over Canadian Parliament Shooting

Conservative media are invoking one of their favorite Benghazi hoaxes to accuse President Obama of reluctance to characterize the fatal shootings near Canadian Parliament as terrorism, despite the fact that Obama framed it in terms of "terrorism" the day of the shooting, just as he called the Benghazi attacks "acts of terror" the day after the 2012 assault.Canadian PM Vows To Fight Terrorism After Gunman Opened Fire, Killing Soldier, Near Parliament Building NPR: "Soldier Killed, Suspect Dead In Shooting Near Canadian Parliament." On October 22, a gunman opened fire at Canada's National War Memorial and then proceeded to enter the Canadian Parliament building. As NPR reported: In a televised address to his country, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said over the next few days "we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had."  But this attack, as well as the one earlier this week, shows that "Canada is not immune to the type of terrorist attacks we see elsewhere."  Harper, however, said that this will not intimidate his country. Instead, Canada will redouble its efforts against terrorism, he said, and make sure terrorists find "no safe haven." [NPR,10/22/14] Right-Wing Media Pretend Obama Won't Acknowledge That Canadian Shooting Was Terrorism, Just Like After Benghazi Fox Correspondent Ed Henry: To Understand White House's Reluctance To Call Shooting Terrorism, "Look Back To Benghazi [Where] The Administration For Days Was Suggesting It Was Not A Terrorist Attack." On the October 22 edition of Hannity, Fox's White House correspondent Ed Henry said that Obama wouldn't definitively call the Canadian shooting a terrorist attack because of their similar response to Benghazi: HANNITY: If you look at the Canadian media as the story was developing today, and then of course the Prime Minister saying this was a terrorist act. It's hard to understand why there's this mysterious reluctance and resistance. It's sort of like Fort Hood, and it's kind of like what happened in Oklahoma, with the White House not being willing to identify this. HENRY: Look back to Benghazi, obviously, a couple years ago. And the administration for days was suggesting it was not a terrorist attack, and then obviously got burned by that when the facts came out. That may be one reason, obviously, why they're a bit jittery or cautious about going in any direction until all the facts come in. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/22/14] Fox Host Andrea Tantaros: "Why Would We Expect President Obama To Call This An Act Of Terror" When He Wouldn't Use That Term To Describe Benghazi? During an October 22 discussion roundly criticizing Obama for supposedly not calling the Canadian shooting incident an "act of terror," Outnumbered co-host Andrea Tantaros claimed there "is an apprehension and hesitancy by this White House to identify your enemy," citing the 2012 Benghazi attacks in Libya (emphasis added): TANTAROS:  I would trust the words of the Canadian prime minister, right? You would assume, Sandra, because this happened in Canada, and they've been watching this guy for a long time, they had suspended his visa so that he couldn't leave, they have more facts than we do. So if the Canadian prime minister says that this is terrorism, I'm going to trust that they have the facts. Just like when the Libyan president called Benghazi terrorism and jihadism, our president didn't listen to him. OK? And so why, Sandra, would we expect President Obama to call this an act of terror when a hole that was large enough for twenty men to walk through was blown into our consulate and he couldn't use those terms then. There is an apprehension and a hesitancy by this White House to identify our enemy. They won't even say we're at war. And to build on Eric's point, you have to identify the enemy or you'll never be able to defeat it. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 10/23/14] Fox & Friends: Obama's "Failure To Recognize Terror As Terror" In The Canadian Shooting Is Like His Benghazi Response. On the October 23 edition of Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy asked whether Obama's reaction to the Canadian shooting was putting the U.S. at risk because he failed to recognize terror. Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. responded that Obama's response was similar to that after Benghazi (emphasis added): DOOCY: Should this serve as a wake-up call to Canada and America, and could the president's failure to recognize terror as terror put us at risk? Peter Johnson, Jr. joins us live.  JOHNSON: We need to take the wake-up call and say 'don't call back in five minutes.' The president, unfortunately Steve, and our friends out there this morning, has not recognized terror as terror -- Benghazi, Fort Hood, the Little Rock 2009 massacre of our American soldiers here on American soil, Alton Nolan and the beheading as you were talking about before. So the first step is recognition of the problem. We need to be strong and powerful enough to say yeah, there is a problem and we're going to contain it here in the United States.  [...] But the problem is, we haven't recognized it and called it as such. So today, the president needs to recognize this as terrorism. He didn't recognize it yesterday, although the Canadian prime minister did, and the world did, and anyone that could read about it or see it on the FoxNews.com site or on our television could say, what do you think it is? This is a radicalized Islamist terrorist. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/23/14] Rush Limbaugh: The Canadians, "They're Not Pretending It Isn't Terrorism," In Contrast To Obama. Radio host Rush Limbaugh was quick to juxtapose the Canadian PM's response next to Obama's, saying, "the Canadians, they're not pretending it isn't terrorism": LIMBAUGH: So what a contrast, or a juxtaposition, if you will. The Canadians -- they're not pretending it isn't terrorism. Stephen Harper went right out there and told everybody why this happened, who did it, and what their objectives were, and they're not going to be intimidated. And in Washington, kind of look, I don't know, ridiculous. [...] Political correctness on parade there in the White House. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/23/14] In Reality, Obama Framed Canadian Shooting In Terms Of "Terrorism" And "Terrorist Activity" President Obama: "We Have To Remain Vigilant" When "Dealing With These Kinds Of Acts of Senseless Violence Or Terrorism." When asked to address the Canadian shooting on October 22, President Obama referenced terrorism or terrorist activity three different times in connection to the event (emphasis added): THE PRESIDENT: We don't yet have all the information about what motivated the shooting. We don't yet have all the information about whether this was part of a broader network or plan, or whether this was an individual or series of individuals who decided to take these actions. But it emphasizes the degree to which we have to remain vigilant when it comes to dealing with these kinds of acts of senseless violence or terrorism. And I pledged, as always, to make sure that our national security teams are coordinating very closely, given not only is Canada one of our closest allies in the world but they're our neighbors and our friends, and obviously there's a lot of interaction between Canadians and the United States, where we have such a long border. And it's very important I think for us to recognize that when it comes to dealing with terrorist activity, that Canada and the United States has to be entirely in sync.  We have in the past; I'm confident we will continue to do so in the future.  And Prime Minister Harper was very appreciative of the expressions of concern by the American people. [...] Q:    What does the Canadian attack mean to U.S. security, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't have enough information yet. So as we understand better exactly what happened, this obviously is something that we'll make sure to factor in, in the ongoing efforts that we have to counter terrorist attacks in our country. [Whitehouse.gov, 10/22/14] And Immediately After Benghazi Attacks, He Called The Assault "Acts Of Terror" Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On Sept. 12, the day after the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden on the deaths of four U.S. diplomatic staff. He said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/12/12] Sept. 13: Obama Again Referred To The Benghazi Attack As An "Act Of Terror" In Colorado. Campaigning in Golden, Colorado, on Sept. 13, Obama again classified the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror." He told the crowd, "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me:  To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/13/12] Sept. 13: In Nevada, Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Act Of Terror Will Dim The Light" Of American Values. Later on Sept. 13, Obama again labeled the Benghazi violence an "act of terror." He told a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, "As for the ones we lost last night:  I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm:  No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/13/12]

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 4:01 am

Iowa Newspapers Speak Out Over Joni Ernst Snubbing Them

Iowa Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst has canceled or declined to meet with editorial boards at several major Iowa newspapers, including the Des Moines Register, the largest circulation daily in the state.  In interviews with Media Matters, staffers at those outlets suggested Ernst's lack of availability is nearly unprecedented. Ernst is a state senator and the Republican nominee for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Harkin. She is facing Democratic challenger Bruce Braley, currently a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In a post to Facebook this morning, Rekha Basu, a Register columnist who participates in the endorsement interviews, announced Ernst had "unilaterally" canceled a planned meeting with her paper's editorial board. Noting she had "also begged off meetings with The Cedar Rapids Gazette and The Dubuque Telegraph-Herald," Basu asked, "Is Joni Ernst afraid of newspaper editorial boards?" Basu told Media Matters that such a cancellation by a major party U.S. Senate candidate has never occurred before during her 23 years at the paper. "Never, not that I'm aware of," Basu said. "Not in the time I've been here, no refusing." Basu, who declined to speculate on Ernst's reason for pulling out of the meeting, pointed out that Ernst did meet with the editorial board in May during the Republican primary and received the paper's endorsement at that time. "I think it's a very important forum in which to explain one's positions and stand up for them, to make the case for why they are the best person to be elected," Basu said. "I would hope that if someone is committed to being in the U.S. Senate that they would be able to share directly with reporters and editors their reasons and uphold their policy positions." The paper has yet to endorse a U.S. Senate candidate for the general election next month. Editors at other Iowa newspapers also spoke out about Ernst declining or avoiding meetings.   "We never got anything on the schedule," said Elizabeth Schott, director of editorial relations for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "We did request, we offered, we would have liked to interview her, but they chose to spend her time elsewhere. I cannot recall a time that that has happened before. We interviewed 27 other candidates this season, from county supervisor all the way up to U.S. Senate." Amy Gilligan, managing editor of the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and a member of the editorial board, said she does not believe another major candidate had declined to meet with the newspaper in her 25 years on staff. "I don't think it's ever happened," she said. "I was surprised, we have the senators in Iowa, it's a huge position and we have such long-serving senators that they're nationally known and iconic and Senator [Chuck] Grassley and Harkin have always made time to come here."

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 2:35 am

Karl Rove Bungles Poll Numbers On Obamacare

Fox News contributor and Republican strategist Karl Rove misreported Gallup poll data on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in order to attack health care reform as a liability for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections. In fact, the Gallup poll Rove cited found that the majority of respondents said the ACA has had no effect on them or their families, and 16 percent of respondents said the law helped. In his October 22 Wall Street Journal column, Rove claimed that the ACA "is re-emerging as a major liability for the Democratic Senate" heading into the November 4 elections. Citing an October 2 poll by Gallup, Rove alleged that 54 percent of Americans "said the Affordable Care Act had hurt them and their families, compared to 27% who said it had helped them." But according to Gallup, a majority of Americans (54 percent) believe that Obamacare has "had no effect" on them or their families, and another 16 percent believed that the ACA has helped:

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 1:13 am

What You Need To Know About The For-Profit Idaho Chapel Being "Forced" To Perform A Gay Wedding

Conservative media outlets are promoting the cause of an Idaho wedding chapel suing so it can deny services to gay couples, inaccurately portraying the chapel as a religious institution rather than as a for-profit business. On October 17, the anti-gay legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit against the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, on behalf of the chapel, which is called the Hitching Post. The lawsuit alleges that the city's non-discrimination ordinance would force owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp to violate their religious beliefs by performing same-sex weddings, despite the fact they had previously offered to officiate non-religious ceremonies without complaint. ADF is using the lawsuit to revive the right-wing horror story that churches and clergy members will be forced to perform gay weddings. ADF senior legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco stated in a news release, "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here." Right-wing media, led by Fox News reporter Todd Starnes, have echoed ADF's spin. Starnes was the first to misrepresent the case, writing: What in heaven's name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage. That talking point was echoed by The Daily Signal, Human Events, and Red State, as well as several Fox News segments. But conservative reports about the Hitching Post lawsuit have omitted important facts about the case:

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 12:50 am

Right-Wing Media Politicize Canadian Parliament Shooting To Attack Gun Safety Measures

Conservative media are claiming that looser gun safety laws are key to preventing shootings like the one in Canada, a nonsensical stance given that the U.S. has far less restrictions on gun ownership and a higher incidence of gun violence compared to Canada and other high-income nations.Attacker At Canadian Parliament Taken Down By Sergeant-At-Arms CBC News: Gunman At Canadian Parliament Taken Down By Security Official. On October 22, a gunman shot and killed a guard at Canada's war memorial before advancing to the nearby Canadian Parliament's House of Commons, where he was shot down by Sergeant-At-Arms Kevin Vickers, who is responsible for safeguarding the authority, safety, and security of the House and Parliament premises. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Vickers previously served as director of security operations for the House of Commons and had significant security experience "that included protecting foreign dignitaries and members of the Royal Family." [CBC News, 10/22/14] Right-Wing Media Use Attack To Push For Looser Gun Laws Breitbart.com: "Good Guy With A Gun Ended Terror Attack On Canadian Parliament." Breitbart.com echoed the NRA catchphrase "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" in an article on the shooting headlined, "Good Guy with a Gun Ended Terror Attack on Canadian Parliament" As Breitbart reported: The assistant commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said the attack "caught [them] by surprise," that they didn't see it coming. So it is unclear how many more lives may have been lost if a good guy with a gun had not been present to stop Zehif-Bibeau. [Breitbart, 10/22/14, NPR; 12/21/12] Fox & Friends Hosts: Shooting In Canada "Makes The Argument About Guns." Fox News co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy also jumped to connect the attack to gun laws and suggest that Canada's strict gun laws could impact safety measures: DOOCY: We're just lucky that the sergeant-of-arms was there and he had a gun just outside the caucus room because if the gunman had gone inside with all those people, you know -- we don't know what could have happened. So that makes the argument about guns. KILMEADE: Yeah, in Canada where they have much stricter gun control laws. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/23/14] Fox News Judicial Analyst: Canada Has "Draconian" Gun Laws, Needs An "Armed Citizenry." On the October 23 Fox & Friends, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano argued that "the lesson" of the shooting is that an "armed citizenry" is the best deterrent for such attacks and that Canada's gun laws are too "draconian": NAPOLITANO: But if he had not been there or if he had not had that gun, gun control laws in Canada are as draconian as they have been in Washington, D.C. or Chicago. The government thinks that people should not be able to arm themselves. In my view, that's the lesson. Look, ISIS is a threat in many ways. This in some respects is a very, very devious way because it's the loner. It's the lone wolf. We don't know if this person came from an organization or did this on his own. This person does not cause a big commotion. It's not an army marching on a city. It's one guy getting out of a car and starting to shoot. What is the best deterrent to that? An armed citizenry. People able to protect themselves. We have a Second Amendment in this country. They do not have the equivalent of that in Canada. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/23/14] In Reality, Having An Armed Citizenry Does Not Prevent Mass Shootings Mother Jones Report: In 30 Years Of U.S. Mass Shootings, None Were Stopped By Armed Civilian. An in-depth analysis of 60 public shootings in the U.S. over 30 years found that "attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare -- and successful ones even rarer." In fact, not one mass shooting had been stopped by an armed civilian, and civilians who tried were often injured or killed (emphasis added): We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years--at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools. [Mother Jones, 12/15/12] FBI Study: Law Enforcement And Unarmed Civilians Are Significantly More Likely To Stop Public Attacks Than Armed Civilians. A recent FBI study that looked at U.S. active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 found that 54 percent of incidents ended in suicide by the shooter, 26 percent were stopped by law enforcement, 13 percent were stopped by unarmed civilians, and just 3 percent were stopped by individuals outside of law enforcement, the vast majority of whom were on-duty security guards. In fact, an unarmed civilian was significantly more likely to stop an attack than an armed one: Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun. The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA, but for those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts, this finding is consistent with other evidence that the pro-gun community chooses to ignore. [The Huffington Post, 9/29/14] A Peer-Reviewed Study Found That Most Police Chiefs Do Not Believe Civilians Should Carry Guns In Public. A 2006 survey of police chiefs which appeared in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that 58.4 percent of police chiefs believed civilians should not carry firearms in public places. [Police Chiefs' Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2006] Loose Gun Laws Actually Correlate With Increased Shooting Deaths Study: The "U.S. Has More Guns -- And Gun Deaths -- Than Any Other [G-8] Country." A recent study by New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has both more guns (88.8 per 100 people) and more gun deaths (10.2 per 100,000 people) than any other G-8 country. In contrast, Canada has just 30.8 guns per 100 people and has an average of 2.44 gun deaths per 100,000 people. [ABC News, 9/19/13; ABC News 12/18/12] The United States Has A Firearm Homicide Rate 19.5 Times Higher Than Other High-Income Nations. A 2011 study authored by researchers from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that gun homicides occur in the United States 19.5 times more often compared to "23 populous high-income Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries." The study found "among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children." [The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, January 2011] Gun Violence Expert Dr. Stephen Hargarten: Stricter Gun Regulations Do Not Encourage Mass Shootings.  Mother Jones also spoke to gun violence expert Dr. Stephen Hargarten: There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. [Mother Jones, 12/15/12]

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 12:47 am

Ingraham Urges Listeners: Support Senate Candidate Scott Brown "Right This Very Moment" Because He Opposes "Amnesty"

From the October 23 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group's The Laura Ingraham Show:Previously: Laura Ingraham Campaigned Against Eric Cantor To Push Her Perfect Anti-Immigrant Candidate To Victory Four Examples Of Fox News Serving As Scott Brown's Campaign Megaphone

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 12:28 am

Fox Host Attacks Chrissy Teigen For Calling Attention To Gun Violence: "This Is The Problem When Models Start To Talk"

Fox News host Andrea Tantaros attacked model Chrissy Teigen because Teigen correctly noted the higher level of public gun violence that occurs in the United States compared to Canada. As news reports came in on October 22 about an active shooter in Canada's parliament building, Teigen tweeted, "active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in america, wednesday." On the October 23 edition of Outnumbered, Tantaros said Teigen "is known for obviously her lovely bottom and her food Instagram pictures. She should stick to that. This is the problem when models start to talk; it plays into that dumb model stereotype."

Posted by on 23 October 2014 | 12:19 am