tucker-carlson

rawstory.com
Fox & Friends freaks out over black Captain America: It’s a plot to ‘target conservatives’ [TW: Right Wing Extremism, Anti-Immigrant Bigotry]
The hosts of Fox & Friends asserted over the weekend that Marvel’s Captain America had declared war on conservatives because a recent comic book story line had the superhero battling white supremacists.

The hosts of Fox & Friends asserted over the weekend that Marvel’s Captain America had declared war on conservatives because a recent comic book story line had the superhero battling white supremacists.

Conservative websites expressed outrage last week after a video released by the right-leaning MacIver Institute think tank suggested that Captain America’s latest villainous threat, Sons of the Serpent, represented real life conservatives who oppose Hispanic immigrants.

A Fox & Friends segment on Saturday warned that Captain America’s new mission was to “target conservatives.”

“He’s got a new odd enemy,” Fox News host Clayton Morris reported, noting that Captain America was now a black man. “Instead of going against Hydra and the typical Captain America villains, he’s going up against conservatives. That’s his new enemy.”

Tucker Carlson argued that Islamic extremists or ISIS members would have been more appropriate enemies.

“The [Supreme Serpent] is an American who has misgivings about unlimited illegal immigration and the costs associated with it,” Carlson said. “And that, according to the comic book, is evil.”

“Right, so these serpents are stopping people from coming over the border and Captain America is saying, ‘That’s not going to happen on my watch, I’m Captain America,‘” Morris agreed. “An interesting discussion around the idea of [immigrants bringing] disease and rapists and everything else.”

Carlson declared that Marvel was portraying average Americans as “snake-handling bigots and they need to be held in place or else they’ll turn this country into Nazi Germany. It’s like, the people who run this country, a lot of them actually believe that. I live near them. They really think that.”

“They should do a comic book on the opposite,” co-host Health Childers offered. “The people who are working the border to keep us safe.”

Morris called for comic books to return to story lines like Captain America “punching Hitler in the face.”

“And now the threat comes from ordinary Americans,” Carlson lamented. “Probably some of you watching at home, they think you’re dangerous.”

“Keep politics out of comic books,” Childers said.

Watch the video below from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast Oct. 17, 2015.

h/t: David Edwards at The Raw Story

The 25 Least Influential People of 2012

Any magazine can do a year-end list of influential people who have accomplished far more than most of us ever will. But only GQ possesses the iron testicles to count down the twenty-five least significant men and women of 2012—a collection of people so uninspiring that we should round them all up and stick them on an iceberg. Please note that these folks are ranked in no particular order, because all zeros are created equal.

I had no idea how much people hated bow ties. It took me 20 years to realize that wearing a bow tie is like wearing a middle finger around your neck.
—  Tucker Carlson • On why he stopped wearing bowties. Carlson is the subject of a Brian Stelter profile in the New York Times regarding the growth of his site, The Daily Caller, which had a banner week last week due to a controversial 2007 video of Barack Obama.
People say, ‘this has already been reported.’ Well actually it hasn’t been reported. And I know, because I reported on it the first time.
— 

Fox “News” host TUCKER CARLSON, on this.

Yes, they say shit like this and get away with it.

(via The Daily Show)

"There Really Is No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon" -Tucker Carlson

Carlson’s claim is even more obnoxious than his ties. 

A brief timeline of assault weapon history

1944: Nazi Germany develops the first mass produced assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44.

1947: The fully automatic AK-47 – which will become the basis for a large class of civilian assault weapons – is released into the arms market.

1962: The military begins to conduct field trials on a recently designed rifle known as the AR-15. The rifle is given the designation M16 and goes on to become the Army’s standard issue rifle. The M16 was capable of fully automatic, burst, and semi-automatic fire.

1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968, which established categories of persons prohibited from owning firearms, gives the executive branch the authority to ban the importation of non-sporting weapons. 

1980s: Semi-automatic assault weapons become widely available on the civilian market. According to the Violence Policy Center, gun manufacturers began to heavily market these weapons to make up for declining handgun sales.

1982: Guns & Ammo magazine publishes a guide to semi-automatic assault weapons simply titled, Assault Rifles.

1986: Duncan Long, an expert on firearms who wrote a widely referenced technical book on the AR-15/M16 rifle, Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns

1988: Guns & Ammo writer Jan Libourel defines an “assault pistol” as, “A high-capacity semi-automatic firearm styled like a submachine gun but having a pistol-length barrel and lacking a buttstock.”

1989: President George H.W. Bush uses executive action to ban the importation of foreign-made semi-automatic assault weapon.

May 1994: Former presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter write a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives urging the enactment of an assault weapons ban.

September 13, 1994: A federal assault weapons ban is enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. An estimated 1.5 million assault weapons already in circulation are exempted from regulation by a grandfather clause. The ban is hampered by loopholes allowing gun manufacturers to make cosmetic changes to banned assault rifles in order to continue to market those weapons to the public.

1998: President Bill Clinton bans the importation of more than 50 types of assault weapons, specificallyvariations of the AK-47 and UZI firearms. 

2001 - 2009: The Bush administration does away with previous executive actions restricting the importation of foreign-made assault weapons.

September 13, 2004: The federal assault weapons ban expires

November 2009: The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, releases a memo attempting to rebrand assault weapons as “modern sporting rifles." 

January 24, 2013: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduces legislation for an expanded assault weapons ban that prohibits the "sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of” 157 named assault weapons, along with any rifles or pistols derivative of the AR-15 or AK-47. The legislation also bans rifles with the ability to accept a detachable magazine that also have one or more military features including a “pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel." 

washingtonpost.com
The only, ONLY takeaway from the incident with a "reporter" from The Daily Caller during today's presidential press availability is "Dickhead Tucker Carlson defends his dickhead reporter's interrupting the President's announcement and media availability because dickhead conservatives and their dickhead 'news' outlets think they can act like dickheads whenever these tiny little dickheads feel like it, which is pretty much always." Or better yet, "Non-journalist Tucker Carlson is a rude little shit who once got very publicly told off by Jon Stewart and is still trying to live that down."
2

An unexpected side-effect of the heart-wrenching gun massacre in Charleston is that the coverage on “Fox & Friends” has managed to reach all new depths of hideousness, even for the typically horrendous Fox News Channel. It’s a high-water mark (or low-water mark) in what appears to be a ramping up of the awfulness on that far-right morning zoo. Indeed, ‘Fox & Friends” could very well be the newly crowned most vile show on that network, recently outpacing the other contenders from the rogues gallery: O’Reilly, Hannity and “The Five.”

In the aftermath of the Charleston tragedy, “Fox & Friends” has descended to new and uncharted levels of idiocy

politico.com
Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right
Tucker Carlson Explains Why We Love Trump

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump’s hair. I can’t now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

“It’s true you have better hair than I do,” Trump said matter-of-factly. “But I get more pussy than you do.” Click.

At the time, I’d never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he’d say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I’m not even convinced he really wants the job. He’s smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn’t mean his candidacy can’t be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here’s some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.

It turns out the GOP wasn’t simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read theWall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn’t appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the “ghost of George Wallace” that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It’s Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Washington Really Is Corrupt

Everyone beats up on Washington, but most of the people I know who live here love it. Of course they do. It’s beautiful, the people are friendly, we’ve got good restaurants, not to mention full employment and construction cranes on virtually every corner. If you work on Capitol Hill or downtown, it’s hard to walk back from lunch without seeing someone you know. It’s a warm bath. Nobody wants to leave.

But let’s pretend for a second this isn’t Washington. Let’s imagine it’s the capital of an African country, say Burkina Faso, and we are doing a study on corruption. Probably the first question we’d ask: How many government officials have close relatives who make a living by influencing government spending? A huge percentage of them? OK. Case closed. Ouagadougou is obviously a very corrupt city.

That’s how the rest of the country views D.C. Washington is probably the richest city in America because the people who live there have the closest proximity to power. That seems obvious to most voters. It’s less obvious to us, because everyone here is so cheerful and familiar, and we’re too close to it. Chairman so-and-so’s son-in-law lobbies the committee? That doesn’t seem corrupt. He’s such a good guy.

All of which explains why almost nobody in Washington caught the significance of Trump’s finest moment in the first debate. One of the moderators asked, in effect: if you’re so opposed to Hillary Clinton, why did she come to your last wedding? It seemed like a revealing, even devastating question.

Trump’s response, delivered without pause or embarrassment: Because I paid her to be there. As if she was the wedding singer, or in charge of the catering.

Even then, I’ll confess, I didn’t get it. (Why would you pay someone to come to your wedding?) But the audience did. Trump is the ideal candidate to fight Washington corruption not simply because he opposes it, but because he has personally participated in it. He’s not just a reformer; like most effective populists, he’s a whistleblower, a traitor to his class. Before he became the most ferocious enemy American business had ever known, Teddy Roosevelt was a rich guy. His privilege wasn’t incidental; it was key to his appeal. Anyone can peer through the window in envy. It takes a real man to throw furniture through it from the inside.

If Trump is leading a populist movement, many of his Republican critics have joined an elitist one. Deriding Trump is an act of class solidarity, visible evidence of refinement and proof that you live nowhere near a Wal-Mart. Early last summer, in a piece that greeted Trump when he entered the race, National Review described the candidate as “a ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula.” Virtually every other critique of Trump from the right has voiced similar aesthetic concerns.

Why is the Party of Ideas suddenly so fixated on fashion and hair? Maybe all dying institutions devolve this way, from an insistence on intellectual rigor to a flabby preoccupation with appearances. It happened in the Episcopal Church, once renowned for its liturgy, now a stop on architectural and garden tours. Only tourists go there anymore.

He Could Win

Of all the dumb things that have been said about Trump by people who were too slow to get finance jobs and therefore wound up in journalism, perhaps the stupidest of all is the one you hear most: He’ll get killed in the general! This is a godsend for Democrats! Forty-state wipeout! And so it goes mindlessly on.

Actually — and this is no endorsement of Trump, just an interjection of reality — that’s a crock. Of the Republicans now running, Trump likely has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton, for two reasons:

First, he’s the only Republican who can meaningfully expand the pie. Polls show a surprisingly large number of Democrats open to Trump. In one January survey by the polling form Mercury Analytics , almost 20 percent said they’d consider crossing over to him from Hillary. Even if that’s double the actual number, it’s still stunning. Could Ted Cruz expect to draw that many Democrats? Could Jeb?

It’s an article of faith in Washington that Trump would tank the party’s prospects with minority voters. Sounds logical, especially if you’re a sensitive white liberal who considers the suggestion of a border wall a form of hate speech, but consider the baseline. In the last election, Romney got 6 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanics. Trump, who’s energetic, witty and successful, will do worse? I wouldn’t bet on it.

But the main reason Trump could win is because he’s the only candidate hard enough to call Hillary’s bluff. Republicans will say almost anything about Hillary, but almost none challenge her basic competence. She may be evil, but she’s tough and accomplished. This we know, all of us.

But do we? Or is this understanding of Hillary just another piety we repeat out of unthinking habit, the political equivalent of, “you can be whatever you want to be,” or “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”? Trump doesn’t think Hillary is impressive and strong. He sees her as brittle and afraid.

He may be right, based on his exchange with her just before Christmas. During a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump said Hillary had been “schlonged” by Obama in the 2008 race. In response, the Clinton campaign called Trump a sexist. It’s a charge Hillary has leveled against virtually every opponent she’s faced, but Trump responded differently. Instead of scrambling to donate to breast cancer research, he pointed out that Hillary spent years attacking the alleged victims of her husband’s sexual assaults. That ended the conversation almost immediately.

It was the most effective possible response, though more obvious than brilliant. Why was Trump the only Republican to use it?

Republican primary voters may be wondering the same thing. Or maybe they already know. They seem to know a lot about Trump, more than the people who run their party. They know that he isn’t a conventional ideological conservative. They seem relieved. They can see that he’s emotionally incontinent. They find it exciting.

Washington Republicans look on at this in horror, their suspicions confirmed. Beneath the thin topsoil of rural conservatism, they see the seeds of proto-fascism beginning to sprout. But that’s not quite right. Republicans in the states aren’t dangerous. They’ve just evaluated the alternatives and decided those are worse.