Support VoteVets.org
Re: Think Progress » Saudi-Funded Fox News Rejects Ad Arguing Against Middle East Oil Dependence
Last week, progressive veterans organization VoteVets.org released an ad arguing that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” The ad asserts that “every day, Iran gets $100 million richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate.”
While CNN and MSNBC have aired the ad, Fox News is refusing to do so. Politico reports Fox apparently found the ad “too confusing.”
Watch the ad:
What I find remarkable about this ad is that the folks at VoteVets.org have found the ultimate sanction against Iran that simultaneously helps fix the environment. Think about it. When we divert research and development funds away from big oil and to renewable forms of energy we can defund the Saudis, Iraq, Dubai, and Iran and all the other oil producing nations that support terrorism, in one form or another. Remember that almost all the 9/11 skyjackers were Saudi, not Iraqi. We can do that while cleaning our waterways, lessening the impact of offshore oil drilling, and setting up a beautiful future for our kids and grandkids.
But you can bet that if something clever and good for the working man comes along Fox News will refuse it. It will come to pass that the oil companies go the way of the horse and buggy. It is just a matter of time. There is only so much oil to be had and after they wring out every drop of it out of the earth, then what? SO, why not jump on the bandwagon and herald in a new age before that crisis hits?
In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, says “the only confusing thing” is why Fox is rejecting the ad:
“There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.”
It’s unclear what Fox News’ motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News’ parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently.
It is always very clear as to what Fox News’ motivations are. They probably coordinate with the GOP before they air any kind of ad, especially one that advocates clean air. They will misinform the public through omission. It’s like I’ve always said – the more you watch Fox News, the more misinformed you become.
___________________________________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!
G.W. Bush Nominees Were Unabashed Ideologues
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts
Re: AP SPIN METER: GOP Senators Shifting Standards On Supreme Court Nominees, Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press
To Republicans, it depends on conservative issues. For their ideology? Then it doesn’t take much experience at all.
Bush nominated Roberts for Chief Justice because of Bush v. Gore. Remember that? It was the worst ruling by the Supreme Court in US history. Roberts represented Bush and wrote the brief. He was instrumental in successfully arguing the case. Once the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency, Bush later nominated him for DC circuit judge when it became available. This began the worst case of cronyism in recent history. Roberts wasn’t qualified for the Circuit. Then, after he had only served about a year as a DC circuit judge, Bush nominated him for the second time, this time for the US Supreme Court. Before that, he had no judicial experience. His experience that would qualify him for associate justice was “thin” to say the least, but chief justice? Bush propelled him to the top for winning Bush v. Gore. His views? This is from Wikipedia, “As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade“. Do you need anything else? If you do, then consider that Roberts recused himself from Hamden v. Rumsfeld, a case that challenged the Bush administration’s ability to try detainees at Gitmo in military tribunals, because he had already ruled on this case as a member of the DC circuit. He ruled in favor of Bush, of course.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito had more experience as a judge, but looking at his rulings you have to wonder if experience alone qualifies him. While serving on the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Alito wrote in the dissent on Doe v. Groody that police, while serving a search warrant, conducting a strip search of a mother and her 10 year old daughter did not violate the mother and daughter’s constitutional rights because of “qualified immunity”, a legal defense for state and federal employees protecting them from civil actions. This is the guy that Bush figured would make a fine supreme court justice. This and other rulings were questioned during his nomination hearings. Alito was nominated by a vote of 58-42, the second lowest vote for a supreme court nominee in US history.
The right wing is crying about the nomination of Elena Kagen who is a moderate, yet these two right wing hard-liners were confirmed and are serving on the Supreme Court. This is a dark time for justice in America.
_______________________________________________________________________