FOX VIDEO- Hannity eggs on guest who wants multiple world leaders murdered

[Nothing Without Hope]

Hannity not only primed him but ENCOURAGED him. The man, Wayne Simmons, also compared Chavez to Hitler and Mussolini and "justified" calling for the killings by saying that the world would have been better off if those two dictators had been assassinated too. Simmons was allowed to say that these murders were necessary to protect our country. Hannity encouraged all of this outrageous talk. You MUST see this video. The transcript is also available at the link at the bottom of this opening post.



This video clip from Fox News may well shock you even more than the Pat Robertson call for Chavez' assassination did. The people at Fox knew this guy Wayne Simmons, described on the screen as a "former CIA agent," was an ultra-hawk. They've had him as a guest before. But Hannity primed him, and once he started spouting about the necessity to murder multiple world leaders - he said it was something the President could "call for" - and comparing Chavez to Hitler and Mussolini, Hannity just kept egging him on and did not indicate disagreement or any legal questions about what Simmons was saying. This despite Colmes' citing the law that makes such calls for murder of foreign leaders illegal. This is way, way over the line - we need to publicize and protest this outrage. Fox and Hannity should not be allowed to get away with this. Faux News lies and conceals all the time, of course, and Hannity is a neocon mouthpiece, but even for them, this defiance of the law is a disturbing extension of their methods.

Here's the clip (Windows Media):
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Colmes-SImmons-Chavez.wmv

Here's the Crooks and Liars permalink which gives it and discusses this outrage:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/25.html#a4628

And here's a transcript and discussion:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/25/hannity_colmes_regular_says_chavez_should_have_been_killed_a_long_time_ago.php#more

Excerpt:

Mods - the first two paragraphs of this excerpt are from the NewsHounds writers and the last four are part of the Fox News transcript, so the 4-paragraph rule is obeyed.
August 25, 2005

Hannity & Colmes Regular Says Chavez "Should Have Been Killed A Long Time Ago"

Although Pat Robertson's recent remarks calling for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez have been widely criticized elsewhere, FOX News' prime time show Hannity & Colmes (8/24/05) chose a guest - one whose views were surely known before airtime - who not only backed up Robertson but agreed that Chavez should be killed.

"Former CIA analyst" Wayne Simmons is a frequent FOX News guest and can always be counted on for rabidly hawkish sentiments (search his name in our search box for write-ups on some of his other appearances on FNC). Choosing him to discuss Robertson's remarks is a near-guarantee of corroboration. It is almost impossible to imagine that FOX News would not have known where Simmons would have stood. Surely, he did not disappoint his host.

(snip)

Colmes said assassinations are against the law. "We don't do that."

Simmons: "The president can order that. That should have been ordered. This guy needs to go."

Colmes asked if there aren't other dictators more dangerous, like in North Korea. "Should we knock those guys off, too?"

"Yeah, absolutely... This is not something where we have a terrorist dictator where we can go negotiate."

(snip - much more - I recommend reading both the analysis and the transcript)

You really have to watch and read the whole thing to appreciate how blatant this way and how Hannity pushed it. At a minimum, the FCC should officially warn Fox and rebuke and warn about suspending Hannity. Both went way, way over the line with this and did it knowingly. Advocating the murder of multiple world leaders is not only wrong, it's illegal. I'd like to see a suit brought against Fox, Hannity, and Williams. Colmes tried to inject some sanity and reminded several times about the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. tehy are TRULY juimping the shark

good, show the colors

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. I don't agree - watch the video. They are encouraging the large Fox

audience to believe that Chavez and other world leaders that the neocons don't like should be murdered in order to protect the country and that the president has the power to "call for" this. He compared Chavez to Hitler and Mussolini. This is fomenting hate, fear and violence and that is NEVER good. The Fox audience has already demonstrated their inability to see through lies like this. Hannity's behavior encouraged viewers to believe the man was right, and the identification of him as a "former CIA agent" seemed to indicate that he was knowledgable and spoke from facts. Plus, they knowingly and repeatedly broke the law against advocating murder of world leaders.

The FCC and the network must be complainied to. This is not a trivial issue. What they did was not only hideous, violent propaganda, it is illegal.

[wli]

3. oh I can see how that will end up already...

It'll end up in FISA courts, because they're Operation Mockingbird agents, and get thrown about because they're immune from prosecution without ever giving any substantive cause for throwing the cases out.

One might as well try, though.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. That's not true though

They don't have the power. Last night I was reading Al Franken's book and he talks about Clinton and BinLaden. Apparently Clinton could've gotten BinLaden if Congress said he could. You can not "get" a foreign leader because they don't like you or whatever. It's against the law, even against OUR laws. The only reason why Clinton could've gotten BinLaden was because he wasn't any type of foreign elected leader.

[jokerman93]

92. Overt scapegoating

It begins?

[Montauk6]

4. OK, THAT DOES IT!!!!

No more of this "Bringing up Nazis kill an argument" nonsense, OK? If these guys in the media and even in our government can willy-nilly compare world leaders to Hitler and Mussolini when it suits their agenda, then we have equal access to do likewise with * and his cronies—esp. if the comparison is valid.

Whaddya say?

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. I think there are MANY reasons why the neocons are best described as a

Mussolini-style Fascist movement - but I don't think that calling Bush a Hitler really scores any points to bring in the people who still NEED to be convinced. It's preaching to the converted and it puts off many who don't yet see the truth. The Hitler card is a red flag that stops the process of thinking too often.

I DO think that we should use the real reasons to fear what the neocons are up to to mobilize support. Realistic FEAR is a better way to bring people to see the light than constant ANGER. Many people in this country are worried that the neocons are out of control - and of course they ARE. But they may not realize the real danger of a war with Iran, further and covert attacks of Social Security, the destruction of an independent judiciary, and so much else that will affect their lives in important ways.

So I'm against playing the Hitler card - I think it turns off the people we need to be reaching. We need to show them what to fear, and use FACTS to do it.

For the Iran War possibility, see this thread, and don't miss #42;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2037110
Thread title: All the pieces are on the board, folks....time to get worried

For the stealth attack on Social Security, see this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2035102

And as you know, there's so much more - the lies, the murders, the threat to everything decent.

[Montauk6]

10. But, wouldn't it then be incumbent on the person playing the "Hitler card"

to point out what it was that Hitler did? By avoiding it, don't we run the risk of repeating history?

Shouldn't people be educated beyond visceral knowledge that Hitler killed 6 million Jews? What I mean by that is, focus on the real evil there. And this could just be my sole opinion shared by no one: fine. For me, what made the Holocaust so evil was not the killing of 6 million per se (though that was on its own ghastly) but the fact that the killing was done with the full sanction of a modern political/legal system. They successfully reduced it to a cold, antiseptic process, a governmental project (The Final Solution). That scares the HELL out of me.

So bringing this back to topic, a good faith, valid comparison of what took place during the Third Reich and what is taking place here in corporate America. I think it's more than just preaching to the converted. If you lay out what took place and compare it to post-9/11 (you don't even have to bring up concentration camps) America, then the onus is on the person receiving the argument. And if they just walk away at the mere mention of Nazi Germany, then they're in denial from the get-go, and I highly doubt that you can reach them even if you don't play the "Hitler card." It's like the Dems trying to reach the Undecideds in the last election. By 2004, after what these rogues have done to us and other countries, if you still couldn't figure out whether or not you were going to vote for Bush, then I say move on to the next person.

I dunno...

[Nothing Without Hope]

11. I do think that we should talk about the "Hitler card" and make clear

what he did. The beliefs and goals of Mussolini are actually closer to the neocons - that is true fascism, the rule of corporate goals and profits. There is that "warning signs of fascism" piece that has been going around for months - it's good.

Starting a discourse by saying Bush is like Hitler is a mistake, I believe. It turns off many potential isteners. But as you say, reminding the public of what Hitler and Mussolini were, what their goals were, the eerily similar quotes that sound just like the neocons. People need to see that these neocons are fascists and they are NOT for the public good. They are for world domination for their own ends at the expense of everthing and everyone we value.

IT would also be helpful, I think, to give history and quotes of REAL traditional Republicans. They are VERY different, in fact often opposite, to what the radicals who have taken over our goverment want. There are a lot of people who are still voting Republican because they don't realize that the people in power have betrayed all the traditional Republican values that they value.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. What I *try* to do

is show the differences and similiarites without naming either/or and making them guess. Like tell what each person did and say whatever Bush did as person number one and Hitler as person number two and see who can guess who person number one is. Something like that.

[ret5hd]

90. ...the fascism...

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. Hannity must feel very safe to elicit demands for assassinations

of world leaders. If anyone doubted these TV hatemongers were protected. doubt no more.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. Colmes cited the law that made the statements illegal and was swept

aside. This was all done knowingly and they must be held accountable for it.

A suit needs to be brought. That Hannity expects to be protected should not mean that the forces of law and sanity hold back. They broke the law. Clearly. They set up this interview knowing this would happen - they know the guest and Hannity primed him to rant - and then Hannity kept pushing it to make it still worse.

This is BLATANT. It MUST be addressed. This illegal, violent propaganda is continuing to influence the huge Fox News audience - who have now heard without apparent rebuttal that Chavez is like Hitler and that Bush has the power and should call for the murders of Chavez and other world leaders he doesn't like. And that these people are direct threats to the US and that the murders would be "protecting" our country.

This MUST BE FOUGHT. This is it - will we accept this evil propaganda or fight it?

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. IF Hannity had elicited a naked boob, we'd have a better chance

of getting the FCC to pay attention. Unfortunately, he only elicited death threats against foreign leadership and violent propaganda.

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. I understand your bitterness and sarcasm, but we need to make this effort

They broke the law. It's very clear. It isn't just spouting lies and violent propaganda, it's a legal issue.

[punpirate]

12. There's a difference, I think...

... if I understand your argument. Colmes apparently cites law making it illegal to order assassinations. That law doesn't seemingly have provisions in it which makes it illegal to advocate the assassination of foreign leaders by non-governmental citizens. There's a profound legal difference between those two facts. The law covers acts authorized by the President. The latter is covered by free speech and the slander and libel laws.

There's no basis for a suit, in other words. It may be propaganda, but, technically, it's not illegal, because it's an opinion expressed by a commentator on a news program.

The only way you can fight this is by countering the propaganda. In US law, a plaintiff has to be able to demonstrate harm to the plaintiff. Under US law, it would be Chavez whose reputation is harmed by the slander referring to him as "dictator," and it would be up to him to seek relief if he thought it necessary.

That's just the way the law works in this country.

While Hannity's remarks and demeanor are thoroughly vile, they are not criminally illegal.

Cheers.

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. We need some more legal input here. I thought it was illegal for someone

to get on TV and call for the murder of foreign leaders. If this is NOT illegal, then we need to at least very publically repudiate the statements made and casticate the network as a fomenter of violence. The man was allowed to say that Bush can and should call for the murder of Chavez and foreign leaders who are not attacking this country. This needs to be clarified publically and FOX News needs to be held accountable for allowing these violence-fomenting lies.

[punpirate]

14. Then, I believe, you have to tell Fox...

... what you think. That's the extent of what you (or any other citizen) can do.

Cheers.

[rodeodance]

15. we can complain to Fox--yet, I have so many times and never get

a response. I feel helpless when it comes to situations such as this.

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. Is it really true that Fox TV can call for murder of world leaders LEGALLY

That seems awfully extreme even for them - is there no limit at all to what they can say? It's certainly a lie to say, as Hannity encouraged Simmons to say repeatedly, that Bush has the legal power to order the murder of Chavez and other heads of nations that are not attacking us. Comparing Chavez with Hitler was awful, and another lie, but it was not exactly the same as explicitly calling for his murder.

What if a DU poster called for the murder of, say, the Prime Minister of the UK or some other world leader. Would that actually be legal, with no repercussions? I find that hard to accept. It would be fomenting specific violence.

Where else can we go? The FCC? If this is not opposed at all, there will be more and worse.

[punpirate]

17. Welcome to corporate American media...

... they don't listen to anyone but ratings companies and advertisers. They aren't the government. What am I saying? The government doesn't listen to their constituents, either. :)

Yeah, it's frustrating. That's why I don't watch `em. It's a waste of time. They're very predictable, not very bright, and largely cheerleaders for Bush and the right wing. So, what's new? This is not the first outrageous thing they've said or done, and it won't be the last. They are propagandists of the first order, and the best way to counter propaganda is to not listen to it.

Nothing but mind clutter. One has to keep one's mind free of clutter to think clearly.

Cheers.

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. be sure you see the update - what they did BROKE TWO LAWS in addition

to being a deliberate step up in what is "allowable" violence against dissenters. How long before some wacko takes the hint and starts shooting administration "enemies" like Cindy Sheehan? This MUST be opposed, and in fact John Dean has shown there is legal basis for it. It's posted elsewhere on this thread here;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2039206&mesg_id=2039974
Reply #30. John Dean cites two laws, says Robertson's DEATH THREATS WERE ILLEGAL!

This gives us much more ammunition to fight this outrage.

[punpirate]

21. Here's some more legal input...

... and it's kind of interesting. It's about Robertson's original remarks, but I think it also might apply to the instance you described:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. John Dean cites two laws, says Robertson's DEATH THREATS WERE ILLEGAL!

(Thanks to punpirate for this important and interesting link!)

And what happened in that Fox News segment with Hannity and Simmons was WORSE.

Dean - one of the country's great legal minds - cites TWO statutes in this interesting essay, one for a MISDEMEANOR offense and one for a FELONY. He says that both apply, but he concentrates on the felony and gives some precedents that show that people have been convicted for statements even less specific than Pat Robertson's or Wayne Simmons'. In the article, he only addresses Pat Robertson and says that it's only politics that will keep him from being investigated and prosecuted by federal authorities.

The entire article is very interesting reading and needs to be understood by all of us if we plan to try to DO anything about these outrages. Fox News and other neocon propaganda sources MUST be held accountable.

Was Pat Robertson's Call For Assassination Of A Foreign Leader A Crime?

Had He Been a Democrat, He'd Probably Be Hiring A Criminal Attorney
By JOHN W. DEAN

Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully -- (1) … threatens … a foreign official …, (2) attempts to… threaten … a foreign official … shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

(Snip)

It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphases added.) {Dean's emphases in this paragraph are indicated with underlines.}

{snip}

In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant "asked if knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer was." Then the defendant added that, "he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; that he just killed them by blowing them up." This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that "in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out"; that "once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach"; and, that "unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good."

{snip)

Again, I strongly recommend reading the entire article. These laws need to be invoked and can also be cited in letters about this outrage and any other incident in which a GOP creep threatens the life or threatens kidnapping of anyone else. The laws are there and there are precedents that indicate that the Wayne Simmons incident, in which Hannity encouraged Simmons' statements - we need to look at his wording closely - was indeed ILLEGAL. A reasonable (at least to me, a non-lawyer) argument could be made that Fox is liable because they had prior experience with this guest - he's a regular - and that they both knew ahead of time of his extreme hawkish stands on such issues and also played an active role in inducing him to say them on air. Who knows what misguided "patriot" might take it seriously and commit violence?

If you watch the video or read the transcript, you can see that Alan Colmes is distressed at what is happening and HE clearly believes they have crossed a line. But Hannity is allowed to continue to egg Simmons on, and he keeps repeating and expanding his statements.

Early in the Wayne Simmons Fox News interview segment, before he claims that the President could order it, Simmons talks about a bullet from a gun in Kentucky - it's clear to me he means that a patriotic private citizen should murder Chavez. Hannity allows this to stand and then encourages and does not deny the subsequent statements.

This was clearly ILLEGAL and we need to hold FOX accountable for it.

[understandinglife]

42. I've sent links from you excellent OP & comments to Media Matters and

... Think Progress and have urged them to bring as much attention as possible to the illegal broadcasting of illegal demands for assault and murder.

Peace.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. Thanks, UL. This incident and the latest Pat Robertson one are iconic:

they challenge us to resist this blatant call for violent suppression of dissenters to the GOP regime. If we say and do nothing, this will not only be repeated, it will escalate.

In a country with so many wackos and easy acquisition of guns, what will be next? Murder of war protestors? Assassination of Cindy Sheehan? Of judges and government officials that dare to publically disagree with Bush? These are not long stretches from what is already happening and what we saw in that Fox News broadcast. This is why we CANNOT view this as trivial.

[understandinglife]

47. It is, as you note, way beyond trivial. We are looking a rogue super-power

... behavior in all these incidents. Interesting how the UK, along with many others at the UN, are not acquiescing to Bolton.

Bush and his neoconster fellow war criminals and the hoodlums who support and propagandize for them must be stopped and brought before the law.


Peace.

[punpirate]

60. Well, Dean says...

... he believes both statutes apply. But, he implies, at the end of the piece, that the 4th Circuit, under which rulings Robertson would likely be tried, is now also highly politicized and shifted to the right. That's why he ponders the three questions at the end....

Cheers.

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. Might be a different court site for Fox - Dean was considering Robertson.

But even if the same, and even if the chances of winning a suit fairly are small, I think that a group like Media Matters or perhaps ACLU or someone else should try. Otherwise, Fox and Hannity can continue to spew their criminally violent poison with no accountability or general awareness of what they are doing.

[FreedomAngel82]

55. I think so too

Knowing this guy who was the guest he'll go on all the rightwing talk shows and do the same thing and the hosts will do the same thing as Hannity.

[Nothing Without Hope]

69. yes, exactly. He's a regular on Fox and the NewsHounds site has a

file on his previous ourtrageous rants. They knew what he would give them and that's what they wanted. Hannity also took the opportunity to semi-deny that Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez, even after Robertson himself was forced to break down from his lie by the very clear video recordings of his statement. Hannity said "Some say" that Robertson said that thing. The well-trained Fox audience would understand this to mean that the crazy, traitorous "libruls" were daring to say this obviously false thing about saintly, patriotic Pat Robertson.

Here are some of the Newshounds articles mentioning frequent Fox News guest Wayne Simmons' televised views: http://tinyurl.com/8pmfk (It's a google search at the Newshound site).

Among other things, Hannity's buddy Wayne Simmons likes torture and racial profiling - there are three pages of google hits. He's a real gem. They surely knew he would agree with Robertson's calling for the murder of Chavez and then take off into his own bizarro-space after that. And you can see Hannity goading him on throughout the video. It's truly sickening.

In fact, including some of the lovely Mr. Simmon's other televised sickening views in letters to Fox News sponsors, the FCC, and everybody else seems like a good plan. What happened was no accident, and this man's moral sense is a cesspit.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

18. I saw that show. It was disgusting and illegal. Have we just

totally abandoned the laws of this land that don't serve the Bushco purposes? We are living in near anarchy.

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. I feel the same. We MUST counter this and demand federal investigation

and prosecution in addition to writing to FOX and to the FCC and to the other media about how this incitement to murder is not only wrong, it's a CRIME.

Like another poster in this thread said, how long before some misled "Christian soldier" of the GOP decides to take these statements to a logical conclusion and kills a person identified by the Bush Administration and the GOP pundits as a traitorous danger to the country?

Like Cindy Sheehan?

[Al-CIAda]

19. This needs to be forwarded to the Venezuelan government.

Send this the the appropriate addresses and warn them of these fascist loving criminals who would incite the US to murder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1722608


Ven. Embassy-
http://www.embavenez-us.org/

[Flubadubya]

20. Why do they keep calling Chavez a "dictator"...

Even Colmes refers to him as such. Sheez, this man is the duly and democratically elected President of his own country (more than I can say for *).

I just hate it when Americans (especially so-called Democrats, e.g. Alan Colmes) refer to him as a dictator. I even heard that loon for the Evangelist association call him a "military dictator"... Ooohh, I never knew!

This idiotic "dictator meme" needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.

Shame on you Alan Colmes, shame on all of you! :spank:

[Nothing Without Hope]

34. Not only do they refer to him as a "dictator," Simmons says he's a HITLER

and Hannity encourages this statement. It's the OPPOSITE of the truth.

Not only that, but saying Chavez is like Hitler and Mussolini is part of the discussion of how it would be right and good to kill him. It's used to justify MURDER.

See John Dean's statements on Robertson's threat to Chavez elsewhere on this thread - This language calling for Chavez' death is ILLEGAL under two statues:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2039206&mesg_id=2039974

[manxkat]

46. Colmes didn't call Chavez a dictator --

he called him a TINPOT dictator.... sheesh.... talk about getting pulled into the rhetoric. Shame indeed.

[deutsey]

22. Those chickens tend to come home to roost

as Malcolm X once observed.

[Jade Fox]

23. This is truely scary....

If it becomes even an exceptable idea that murdering the leaders of other
countries we disagree with is okay, let alone a reality, then we no longer
have anything resembling a sane, viable government in this country.

This is outrageous, even for Hannity and Fox. Is anyone going to come
down on them for this?

[durablend]

24. It's all about the ratings...

They're undoubtedly itching for either a terrorist attack or (US) civil war in time for sweeps month to capitalize on it.

[MADem]

27. Yep, you cannot call the chimp a Hitler, but you can advocate

...killing anyone who disagrees with him!

Red meat for the dunces, that is what Faux is about!

[amb123]

25. "Hey, let's shoot Cindy Sheehan while we're at it!"

It's just a matter of time before Fox encourages Christian Fascist Psychotics like Wayne Simmons to say that Cindy Sheehan should be shot, that those on the Democratic National Committee should be shot and those who belong to the ACLU, People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church & State and Gold-Star Families for Peace should be shot too.

"Onward Christian Solders, martching as to war . . ."

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. Yes, that's the logical extension if this is allowed to go unprosecuted.

The GOP are saying she's a traitor, that she's unpatriotic. Statements like those on this program and Robertson's encourage the idea that killing people identified by these monsters is a patriotic act.

It's one more reason why we MUST take action on this.

[MisterP]

85. they already pointed their little Brownshirts to an address, saying it

was an ALLEGED terrorist, but it turned out to be another innocent person, who got harassed for days and "terrist" (sic) spray-painted on the wall

[wryter2000]

26. Well, well, well

Is the administration going to come out against Hannity now? :eyes:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

29. They are trying to "normalize" these types of statements. n/t

n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. I agree. It's deliberate, that was clear in the Fox segment. It's a major

step up in the violence to be tolerated against dissent.

We MUST MUST MUST fight back.

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. John Dean cites two laws, says Robertson's DEATH THREATS WERE ILLEGAL!

excerpts and details posted upthread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2039206&mesg_id=2039974

[Jade Fox]

32. email Fox....

Here's the address.

[e-mail]

[ComerPerro]

33. Here's the problem with killing heads of state to "protect the world"

What happens when a coalition of foreign countries decides that our leader (whoever it may be, Clinton, Bush, anyone) poses a danger and decides to kill him.

Are they justified?

According to the right wing, then yes.

The right wing is saying that any country who wants to could come in and assisnate our president, and would be perfectly justified in doing so.

[Nothing Without Hope]

37. Such calls for murder of the GOP's "enemies" endangers Cindy Sheehan

and anyone else identified by the media or the Administration as a danger to the "war on terror" or as giving "aid to America's enemies."

If unopposed, how long before such iincitements to murder lead somefreeper crackpot to kill?

There are many reasons why this incident and the Robertson incident MUST be publicized as the crimes they are and legal recourse sought for them. At the same time, we have to try to combat the lies about Chavez and others the GOP media and administration slime.

[erpowers]

39. Hypocrisy

Can you image the outrage if a foreign leader or the supporter of a foreign leader had said that Bush should have been assassinated long ago. They would be saying that was proof of why the United States needs to attack other countries.

[fearnobush]

40. Parental block stopping FAUX on my TV. You will no longer be able to view

FAUX news in my home anymore.

[katinmn]

43. FCC complaints only cover indecency and obscenity

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html#complaint

What about promoting terroristic threats?

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. According to John Dean, who knows the law, what was done by Roberts

and by extension what was done on that broadcast ARE ILLEGAL. We can certainly complain about fomenting murder and breaking laws.

It may be necessary to TALK to someone at the FCC to find the protocol to use - but no way should they be allowed to let this pass because it wasn't something really serious - like a flash of a nursing mother's breast for example. :sarcasm:

Some discussion with the people at Media Matters might well clarify this even further. They already are protesting Pat Robertson's assassination threat - and what was said in the Fox News interview was even more egregious. There are a lot of articles on the Robertson outrage at the Media Matters site now - this would fit right in. The home page: http://mediamatters.org/

[manic expression]

48. What base filth....

not only is it outright wrong, it is illegal and disgusting.

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. IMPORTANT TYPO IN THE OP: In the final sentence in the OP I wrote:

"I'd like to see a suit brought against Fox, Hannity, and Williams. Colmes tried to inject some sanity and reminded several times about the law."

My tired brain had somehow scrambled the name of the FN guest, Wayne Simmons, and came up with "Williams." I apologize for this error. The last sentence SHOULD read:

"I'd like to see a suit brought against Fox, Hannity, and Simmons. Colmes tried to inject some sanity and reminded several times about the law."

[Initech]

50. We should boycott Hannity's sponsors.

This makes him a certified asshole.

[Nothing Without Hope]

57. Interesting idea - who are his sponsors? I don't have cable and can't

check. It would be especially good to know who the sponsors were for the Aug 24 program, when this outrage took place. We could write to them and complain of what they are supporting.

[ContraBass Black]

72. Microtel sponsors Hannity.

Which is sad, because they offer a good deal.

[Nothing Without Hope]

78. Thank you. Are they the major sponsor? Are there others? I want to be

sure I write to all the right companies in my complaints.

[tsuki]

51. Why does Rupert Murdock hate the world? eoq

[FreedomAngel82]

52. And apparently

we're the terrorist's. :shrug:

[Face_in_the_Crowd]

61. Can anyone give me some info on Chavez?

When I read up on him I find info on his attempted coup, his rise to power, and the kidnapping attempt. I know he doesn't get much support from the rich and powerful of Venez. and that the Anti-Chavez propaganda his media releases is swiftly shunned.

However, why is he being compared to Hitler and Mussolini? Why a brutal dictator? Is it just because of his socialist tendancies and the support he receives from Castro and others, or is there any evidence of this bruatality Robertson and Hannity speak of? PLEASE ADVISE!

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. Welcome to DU! Here's a thread with a lot of info on Chavez in

connection with the Robertson call for assassination but also earlier in his history. Read the OP but also read through the replies. There is a movie site, for example, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", with much background info. Here's this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2034407
Thread title: WaPo reports Pat Robertson has apologized for his fatwa on Chavez - BUT
The opening post includes a compilation of a lot of other threads. Two to be sure to see (one added near the end of the replies) are these;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2029862
Thread title: US Fingerprints on Venezuelan Coup

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2033901
Thread title: Greg Palast on Chavez and why Cheney and Robertson hate him
AllyCat GD-P Thu Aug-25-05 09:47 AM

Re the Hitler comparisons, they are blatant lies. Hitler was an extreme fascist who operated by terrorizing and manipulating people, Chavez wants to give power to the people and help the poor. For example, see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1689644
Thread title: Venezuela's Chavez Presents Land Titles to Indigenous Groups
NNN0LHI LBN Tue Aug-09-05 08:44 PM

The GOP ranters also like to say that Hiter was elected, but he never was. Chavez received a solid majority in a truly democratic election - he's a democratically elected national leader, I'd say moreso than Bush is. Re the "Hitler was elected too" lie, here's a passage from a good article posted at CounterPunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html

Why Pat Robertson Isn't Treated as a Terrorist

By JOHN CHUCKMAN
August 24, 2005

(snip- much more; I recommend the whole article)

Religion, politics, journalism, and even academics serve the American worship of power and greed. I had a brief exchange recently with an exalted fellow from one of America's many well-financed propaganda mills tarted up to resemble research organizations. This exalted fellow had been on a national radio interview, interestingly enough on the same subject of Venezuela. Apart from inaccurate claims about a new broadcast network established in Venezuela while he made a case for American interference, when reminded that Mr. Chavez was democratically elected, he chimed in with, "So was Hitler!"

Hitler, despite huge expenditures and desperately hard campaigns, never received more than just over a third of votes. He was appointed Chancellor, after a long series of backroom manipulations, by the Republic's ancient and exhausted President von Hindenburg. Hitler's rise more closely resembles that of some of America's favorite shady men in Iraq and Pakistan than it does that of a man whose election was closely scrutinized and declared fair by international watchers.

I couldn't let such an inaccurate claim stand and looked up his outfit on the Internet. There, on a page resembling something from a university or research center, was a large quote from Rush Limbaugh about the tremendous job they were doing. What kind of a research institution quotes Rush Limbaugh? There were also, importantly, links for bequests and gifts. And there was an e-mail link to the man on the Venezuela case.

My particular exalted fellow answered at length, accepting the truth of my correction, but making a mighty effort to turn someone's getting one-third of the vote into a de facto election. There were paragraphs of labored reasoning larded with unnecessary facts, perhaps from a history text quickly consulted before replying. He missed the point entirely of respecting a genuinely democratic decision. Here is the kind of analysis being touted across America in an effort to influence the world. And these people do influence the world.

(snip)

Look through all of this and the links in the threads, and I think you'll find what you need. If not, there's plenty more.

And again, welcome to DU! :hi:

[Face_in_the_Crowd]

64. THANKS!

Great stuff...couldn't have asked for more

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. I'd really like to see the movie about the coup - "The Revolution Will Not

be Televised. Here's the web site for the movie; you have to enter it and then explore the varoius links.

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm

There's lots of info there on Chavez, the history of Venezuela, and the politics of oil. Oil is the main reason why the neocons want to grab power in Venezuela. Pat Robertson mentioned oil twice in his brief but murderous comments - you'd think that odd for a "spiritual" man - and I've heard he is ticked because he has some kind of investment in South American diamonds - seems like that was in Venezuela too, but I'd have to confirm that.

[Donailin]

56. No different than the radio staion in Rwanda that called the Tutsis

cockroaches and that they should be exterminated.

Same shit.

[Nothing Without Hope]

67. Yes, and the same intention under it all. Power and wealth are valued by

the neocons more than life, as long as it's OTHER people's lives.

Excellent article on this here - I recommend reading the whole thing:

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html

Why Pat Robertson Isn't Treated as a Terrorist

By JOHN CHUCKMAN
August 24, 2005

(snip)

Pat recently announced on national television that America should murder the elected leader of another country, President Chavez of Venezuela. Previously Pat restricted himself to insulting the religion of a billion people, Islam, or insulting the victims of natural disasters in the United States. After a hurricane in which old men, women, and children died, Pat blamed the victims for their fate by claiming God was punishing America's immorality. His latest effort breaks new ground, being, by any meaningful definition, public advocacy of terror.

(snip)

We really do know why Pat Robertson won't be treated as a terrorist. It's for the same reason Bush's former Attorney General of the United States could tell a group of decent, honest, hard-working American Muslims that they should count themselves lucky they weren't being treated the way Japanese Americans were during World War II. It's for the same reason that Bush protects a mass murderer named Luis Posada Carriles from extradition and trial. It's for the same reason that American troops have made a horror of the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis. It's for the same reason a distraught mother who lost her son in Iraq is vilified by Right Wing savages. It's the same reason why the morally-contemptible Bush is President.

The reason is the worship of power and greed. While it's true that a great deal of America's history has to do with worshipping power and greed, never in my memory has it been so openly expressed, so contemptuously embraced as it is today. It is a sad to reflect in my twilight years that almost everything I was taught as a boy has proved to be wrong. I don't mean subjects like math or English. I mean values. Most of the evidence of my adult life tends to support the opposite of every moral lesson of my youth, certainly as they apply to the land of my birth, a place where power and greed now trump everything.

(snip)

[Nothing Without Hope]

58. Note that on top of everything else, Hannity tried to downplay what

Robertson did. He said "Some say" that Robertson called for Chavez' assassination - as if it wasn't plainly in recordings and as if Robertson had not blatantly lied about it in trying to deny it.

Media Matters has a good discussion of how the GOP mouthpieces in the media are trying to cover for Robertson, including Hannity (http://mediamatters.org/topics/robertson-chavez.html). Even better, or at least more devastatingly funny, is Jon Stewart's treatment of Robertson and his media apologists:



video link to Jon Steward on The Today Show:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-Daily-Show-Pat-Robertson.wmv

Permalink for the Crooks & Liars entry containing the image and the video link:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/25.html#a4621

This downplaying and excusing of the outrageous calls for murder by Robertson and now by Simmons is very widespread, a clearly intentional strategy that needs to be rebutted in our complaints and communications about these incidents.

[Nothing Without Hope]

59. DON'T MISS THE JON STEWART VIDEO POSTED UPTHREAD:

This must-see video and a discussion of its relation to the Simmons case are in Reply #58:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2039206&mesg_id=2040662

[rickrok66]

62. A toolbox to build dissent

Here are some good links to Fox's sponsors, courtesy of Skinthefox.com, contacts at the FCC, and emails for Fox News.

I did write to all of the below sponsors on Foxnews' deplorable reporting of the recent bombings in London. of course, no one at Fox News ever responds to any emails. I didn't even receive an auto-reply. Of all the sponsors below, Dannon and Target sent a response from an actual human. The others either ignored me or sent me an auto-reply.

If many of us write and forward the same email or cc our friends then they will have to notice.

Someone also brought up that the FCC only accepts complaints on indecency, obscenity, and profanity. This is true. However, if you do write, I would follow the guidelines for filing a complaint on the FCC's website and couch your argument in the FCC'd definition of profanity as stated below:

"Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as including language that “denote certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m."

FCC CONTACTS:

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: [e-mail]
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: [e-mail]
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: [e-mail]
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: [e-mail]


You may also file a complaint via e-mail at [e-mail] or by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY.


For a list of the Commission’s recent enforcement actions in this area, please visit the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Web site at www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html.

FOXNEWS CONTACTS:

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

FOXNEWS SPONSORS:

BMW
THE BMW GROUP
Munich, GERMANY
contact online

• Black & Decker
CONSUMER SERVICE CENTER
BLACK & DECKER
626 Hanover Pike
Hampstead, MD 21074 USA
contact online

• Burlington Coat Factory
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
1830 Route 130
Burlington,NJ 08016
contact online

• Celebrity Cruises
CELEBRITY-CRUISES
1080 Caribbean Way
Miami, FL 33132
contact online

• CheapTickets.com
CHEAP TICKETS
7 Sylvan Way
Parsippany, NJ 07054
contact online

• Cingular
CINGULAR WIRELESS
Glenridge Highlands Two
5565 Glenridge Connector
Atlanta, GA 30342
email cingular

• Dannon
DANNON CONSUMER RESPONSE CENTER
P.O. Box 90296
Allentown, PA 18109-0296
contact online

• Ditech.com
DITECH.COM
3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 150
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
contact online

• Dodge
DODGE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE CENTER
P.O. Box 21-8004
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-8004
contact online

• Enova
ENOVA OIL
c/o ADM KAO LLC
4666 Faries Parkway
Decatur, IL 62526
contact online

• Fidelity Investments
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS
82 Devonshire Street
Boston, MA 02109-3614
contact online

• Hula Networks
HULA NETWORKS
340 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
contact online

• Hyatt Gold
HYATT CORPORATION
200 W Madison St, 30th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60606-3413
contact online

• Infiniti
INFINITI CONSUMER AFFAIRS
P.O. Box 191
Gardena, CA 90248
contact online

• Jeep
JEEP | DAIMLER CHRYSLER CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE CENTER
P.O. Box 21-8004
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-8004
contact online

• Lending Tree
LENDING TREE INC.
PMB 008 15105-D
John J Delaney Drive
Charlotte, NC 28277
contact online

• Lexus
LEXUS
P.O. Box 2991 ‹ Mail Drop L202
Torrance, CA 90509-2991

• Lincoln-Mercury
LINCOLN-MERCURY
P.O. Box 1304
Dearborn, MI 48121
contact online

• Mercedes-Benz
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
Customer Assistance
Center 3 Paragon Drive
Montvale, N.J. 07645

• Morgan Stanley
MORGAN STANLEY HQ
1585 Broadway, Floor 39
New York, NY 10036
contact online

• Napster.com
NAPSTER.COM
c/o ROXIO, INC.
455 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
contact online

• Northwestern Mutual
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
720 East Wisconsin Avenue N08WC
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
contact online

• Office Depot
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.
2200 Old Germantown Road
Delray Beach, FL 33445
contact online

• Progressive Insurance
THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
6300 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143
contact online

• Splenda
SPLENDA
c/o JOHNSON & JOHNSON
One Johnson & Johnson Plaza
New Brunswick, NJ 08933
contact online

• Target
TARGET CORPORATION
1000 Nicollet Mall
Mineapolis, MN 55403
contact online

• Travelocity
TRAVELOCITY
3150 Sabre Dr.
Southlake, TX 76092
email travelocity

• Walmart
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611
contact online

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

Take care,

[Nothing Without Hope]

68. Thank you. Do you know which companies sponsor the Fox News Hannity

& Colmes segment? I don't have cable and don't have a clue. But writing to the sponsors to complain is a good idea too.

[Nothing Without Hope]

70. kick - this is still something that should be seen.

I was very pleased to see it on the DU home page and hope people are reading it and will take some action.

[vickitulsa]

75. I don't know if you are checking back for late replies on this

Hope, but I wanted to tell you that I have spent most of this afternoon reading this ENTIRE thread and going to some of the links posted for more backup info. I especially found the FindLaw article helpful and informative and recommend it highly to anyone else reading this thread. I checked out several other sources given here and found them useful as well, and I recommend reading the rest of articles that could only be excerpted here.

I have done this even in the midst of the urgent breaking news to be watched and responded to re Katrina's march toward NO and other areas where human lives will be lost and the destruction will be massive.

So SOME of us clearly do think this matter you post about re Hannity's transgressions is *extremely* important and needs to be followed up!

I'm hoping there are a lot more like me who will do so, and I'm adding my post on the chance that it might influence others even a little bit. I think we need every boost and bit of encouragement we can get when it comes to TAKING ACTION on matters like this! :)

I found this thread on the Greatest page and immediately went to check it out. As I said, and it may take me some time, but I intend to do -- I WILL do -- some following up as I am able, including contacting sponsors at Fox and writing to MediaMatters and others who stand a chance at taking legal action against Hannity and Fox.

Unlike many here who understandably refuse to view Fox News Network for very good reasons, I happen to believe that not only is it wise to keep an eye on "our enemies" who clearly inhabit that corporation, but there are also a few programs and reporters there that are NOT quite so ridiculously and blatantly supportive of BushCo and which do good reporting on occasion. They're not easy to find, but sometimes they cover stories or offer views not seen on CNN or MSNBC or elsewhere.

For instance, this afternoon before John Zirrella (sp mine, not sure) of CNN was at the SuperDome in New Orleans, Fox had a reporter there describing on-camera the events he was witnessing and talking to people standing in line to get into the SuperDome. I watched this for awhile before CNN had a Zirrella there to turn to for the same kind of info for their audience. The Fox reporter didn't mention any political matters and gave only unbiased and "normal" reports while I watched him. Also Fox's main "weather lady" is *excellent* so I like to watch her reports on major weather events.

But the real reason I watch Fox at times now IS to keep an eye on what they are doing. WE NEED TO KNOW.

So I have seen as well WHO SPONSORS Fox programming (even if I do mute the sound on commercials); and it's worth noting that many of the mega-corporate businesses in this country seem to have no problem with advertising on such a network. I think if THEY and many other smaller enterprises who advertise there receive complaints from the public -- from CUSTOMERS -- pointing out the Fox bias and outrages, they will be compelled by their ad people to reconsider where they spend their ad dollars.

And we MUST, absolutely MUST, stop patronizing companies or buying products from companies who advertise on Fox, and LET THEM KNOW WHY. As has been pointed out, this is now a country which for the most part idolizes greed and power, wealth and "commodity." WE MUST HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS -- IN THEIR WALLETS and ON THEIR BOTTOM LINES!

THANKS, Hope, and others who contributed heavily to the substance of this thread. Much useful info was offered and I for one will make use of it.

Lastly, it occurs to me (as I'm sure it has occurred to many who oppose BushCo) that it could well be dangerous to life and limb for American citizens to openly oppose this regime in our White House. I have been hesitant at times to speak in certain venues for this reason; but then I am disgusted with myself when I reflect on having held back out of concern for my own safety and peace. It is not wrong to want to be left unmolested by governmental thugs and hitmen. However, if we care more for our own safety and wellbeing than we do about our country's government being overrun and taken over by such monsters as are in power right now, we will pay a much higher price later -- as will our offspring for a long time to come.

I've seen the Samuel Adams quote on this point as someone's tag here at DU, and I feel it is worth repeating here.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." —Samuel Adams

Think I'll also use it in my sig file for email for awhile. People in this country really do need to start thinking about how much they are willing to put on the line to stop the abuse of power currently running freely through our government.

~VV
____________________________________________

[Nothing Without Hope]

76. Thanks so much for this thoughtful, caring and informative post. I am

encouraged to learn that people DO read what we work to put together.

Since you have been watching Fox - I can't as I don't have cable - can you tell me which companies sponsor the Hannity and Colmes show? I'd especially like to know about the ads on August 24, or whether the same companies keep sponsoring for a longer term. I do think we should write to the sponsors to complain. If you look at the past articles on what this nutjob Wayne Simmons has said on past Fox News broadcasts, you see not only what horrible things they encourage on the air but also that they surely knew that he would not only support Robertson's call for murder, he would exceed it. Hannity encouraged this and also lied when he said "some say" that Robertson called for assassination - a clear message to the Fox audience that he disbelieved that Robertson had said it at all.

That Adams quote is in my collection of favorites as well. I think if he were alive today, he would do more than put a ribbon magnet on his car. He was not a prepossessing man to look at, but no one can doubt the impact of his passion and commitment. I do wonder if today, when face time on TV and the media echo chamber shape too much of people's perceptions, the less flamboyant, glamorous style of Samuel Adams would have doomed his political career. People have short attention spans now, and too many don't want to work toward understanding - they want to be spoon-fed and so what they get is pap.

[Indy_Thinker]

71. Hannity's "Non-response"

When Alan Colmes asks Hannity if he endorses violating the law (the executive order that prohibits political assassination) Hannity sat silently. Between the the not saying anything and the constant barrage of the "some say"* line prefacing Fox broadcasters' slamming of those that buck the administration, it seems to me that you should be concerned in not what they say at Fox, but what they don't say.

* This refers to O' Reilly's allegation that "some say, Ms. Sheehan is a traitor" and Hannity being quoted as saying "Pat Robertson caused a bit of a media stir when 'some say' he called for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez."

[Nothing Without Hope]

77. Oh, Hannity definitely wanted what Simmons gave him - the call for

murders, invoking Hitler, saying it's for "protecting" our country from its "enemies." Hannity knew what to expect from Simmons, he primed him, he egged him on, and he saw to it that what Simmons said was allowed to stand. The last word, as I recall, was Simmons saying something about protecting the country. Raising up fear and hatred and calling for murder. Not a long step at all to having nutjobs shooting war protestors or assassinating Cindy Sheehan or anyone at all that is even suspected of being a dissentor. Not a long step at all. Hannity isn't stupid. Surely he knows this. This was a evil action, that interview, and it was planned and deliberate.

[News Hound Ellen]

74. Fox Pundits Calling For Assassination

Thanks so much for posting about this. I'm the one at News Hounds who did the post there. I was appalled to my core when I saw that segment.

Even worse, Simmons wasn't the only one. Right after that show, Colmes did his FOX News radio show where he hosted FOX News Analyst Colonel Dave Hunt to discuss Robertson's remarks. Hunt, unlike Simmons, is paid by FOX for his punditry. An excerpt of Hunt's remarks are:

"I think we ought to kill the son of a bitch and I don't care how we do it... I don't think we should be held captive by our own ethics and morals when we're in a war for our very survival... I want all the tools available... just like we talked once about torture - and this now is assassination... I don't think we should fight this war with our hands tied behind our backs."

Frankly, I don't understand why FOX hasn't come under greater fire for this. It's worse than disgraceful. It's downright horrifying. We should be screaming at the top of our lungs about it.

You can read my post about Hunt at http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/25/hannity_colmes_regular_says_chavez_should_have_been_killed_a_long_time_ago.php

[Nothing Without Hope]

79. Thank you, Ellen, and welcome to DU! I hope you will be posting more.

(As your number of posts goes up, you get more perks - being able to start a threads and other handy things.)

I apologize for not posting in the comments in your piece on the Hannity/Colmes/Simmons outrage; I normally do leave a note about the thread being started and a link to it. I'm glad you found this thread in spite of that and am honored and excited that you posted this reply and update. Tomorrow I will read your piece on the delightful Mr. Hunt and start a new thread on that, of course linking back to this one as background. The link you give is to the piece on the Hannity/Colmes/Simmons interview - I think this is the correct link for what you wrote on the Hunt rant:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/25/in_the_unbalanced_world_of_fox_news_the_pundits_are_gaga_for_assassinations.php

If you can give me more info on Hunt, more of the transcript or other especially outrageous things he has said (other than what would fall out from a quick search on his name at the Newshounds site), I'd welcome the additional information when trying to put together a compelling, attention-getting opening post.

Or there is this alternative: With only one post, you can't start a DU thread yourself yet, but I'd be happy to post one for you and give you some basic tips about how things work here. I would then support your work on that thread and do what I could to get it noticed.

In either case, I'm very glad you told me about Hunt - it gives additional confirmation that Fox WANTS to have calls for assassination and international thuggery - it sponsors and encourages them. It's not just that awful Simmons interview we need to be protesting and complaining to the FCC, Fox News corporate sponsors, and everyone else about, it's an organized, consistent campaign of such outrages. It is illegal and it is very, very dangerous. Possibly quite deadly if one of their whackjob listeners is inspired to "protect his country" by assassinating a well-known (and GOP-vilified) dissenter like Cindy Sheehan or maybe just some guy who looks like he might be "Arabic" or a Chavez supporter.

Again, thank you for your reply and let's decide how to go about posting here about the extension of this episode with Hunt and any others you feel fit the pattern. (I don't have cable.)

I was pleased to find that this thread appeared on the DU Home Page yesterday (Saturday) morning and it is still there now (Sunday night). I hope that a lot of people saw it and that the word continues to spread. WE CANNOT TOLERATE THESE REPEATED CRIMES OF HATE AND LIES AND INCITEMENT TO MURDER. Fox and Hannity obviously believe they are immune. Let's show them differently. Surely their corporate sponsors would be sensitive to letter-writing campaign that pointed out just what horrors they were associating with their company's name. Surely they don't WANT incitement to violence and even murder done in their name and paid for with their money.

[News Hound Ellen]

83. Colonel David Hunt

Oops, you are right about the link. Thanks for correcting the error.

Thanks, also, for the warm welcome. I have always liked this blog and hope to check it out more.

As for more on Colonel Hunt, he's a rabid hawk, like almost all the FOX News military analysts. One might expect that a network pundit would provide some sense of perspective and detachment but Hunt out-hawks the Bush Administration every time. He seems like a nice guy in every day life (he's always acting fatherly toward Colmes) but what he says is very scary. The quote I provided in my earlier comment is pretty typical. He has a long record of saying outrageously horrible things and the best thing I can suggest for those wanting more info on Hunt is to do a search on our site. www.newshounds.us

[savemefromdumbya]

80. Is Pat Robertson a christian?

They are all after Chevez because of all of the oil he is sitting on.

Vegetable oil is better as we may have fewer assassinations?

[Nothing Without Hope]

81. I've heard that Pat has an investment in South American diamonds too.

For someone who talks so much about the kingdom of God and claims to believe the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Pat sure shows a zealous interest in grabbing all the wealth he can. He's worse than a hypocrite, for he also deliberately misleads others and takes the money of people who need it far more than he does.

I think this article really makes the points on what Pat Robertson really is. I recommend reading the entire essay; it's excellent:

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html

Why Pat Robertson Isn't Treated as a Terrorist

By JOHN CHUCKMAN

America's fundamentalist carnival includes many fascinating acts. Pay your money, and you can watch preachers weeping and screaming, dismissing whole segments of humanity as evil, threatening murder, shaking down congregations for extra donations to named-after-themselves projects, or hitting people in the head to heal cancer. You will also see some monsters finally caught after years of molesting children or hear others advocating crimes against humanity such as using nuclear weapons.

Pat Robertson is one of the Christian Sideshow's longer-running acts, periodically adding some new nightmare to his grim repertoire. Oddly, Pat regards himself as a kind statesman-preacher, a latter-day boondocks version of Talleyrand, Talleyrand having started his remarkable and utterly unprincipled career as a Bishop. Pat regularly mixes the tax-free benefits of religion with the promotion of nasty politics. He has run for President, started quasi-religious organizations to promote his political ambitions, and freely offers his uninformed advice on national and world affairs.

Talleyrand had his various church properties and offices to support him in princely fashion while he worked at politics. Pat supports his public-minded work on resources gathered through one of America's greatest money-changer-in-the-temple careers. The fortune generated through decades of his appeals to unhappy, lonely people watching television gives him access to a genuine commercial empire, from so-called Christian broadcasting to oil refining.

A key difference between Talleyrand and Pat is that Talleyrand was frightfully clever and was a breathtaking success at politics. I put the difference, in part, down to style. Talleyrand in person might remind one of the late Archbishop Sheen, snapping and twirling his scarlet cape and watching his listeners with penetrating eyes - to all that would added something of Lord Byron's fascinating stench of corruption. Robertson has never quite escaped the Jesus-on-the-dashboard flavor of his early career. Pat is pure Super Duper Auto Parts, Aisle Six, smiling salesman for mud flaps and sequined sets of big dice, but with enough animal cunning to have risen to running every Aisle Six on the continent.

(snip - much more, all worth reading)

Here are two threads with revealing editorial cartoons about Pat Robertson's call for Chavez' murder:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4445437
Thread title: *** TOONS: Pat Robertson, Compassionate Wacko Edition ***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4453738
Thread title: *** TOONS: Pat Robertson, Extreme Wacko - PART II***

Finally, I also recommend the article by Greg Palast which is linked to and discussed in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2033901
Thread title: Greg Palast on Chavez and why Cheney and Robertson hate him

You look at it all and you see that they hate Chavez BECAUSE he won't be one of their puppets. Robertson's murderous hatred of Chavez exposes his OWN priorities, which are NOT primarily spiritual or compassionate as he claims. Here's my favorite of the cartoons on Robertson;

[savemefromdumbya]

91. I think Jesus had a saying to describe people like Robertson nt

nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

82. kick - we need to keep this topic going! n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

84. kick - this outrage reflects an established policy of Fox - I'll post an

article on this here later.

[socalover]

86. Fuck Shawn Hannity!

That guy is brainwashing this coutry with lies, lies and more lies to the point of no return....

[Nothing Without Hope]

87. Fomenting hatred of Chavez is established Fox policy - here's an article

that gives some of the history. It's not just Hannity, though he surely needs to be held accountable for his encouraging of murder and lies. This kind of lies and encouragement of violence is Fox policy. And they REALLY hate Hannity at Fox. Here's an article that gives more of the history:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff04302005.html
April 30 / May 1, 2005

Fair and Balanced or US Govt. Propaganda?
Fox News vs. Hugo Chavez

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF
Washington, DC

Given recent friction between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the White House it inevitably was only a matter of time before Rupert Murdoch's Fox News would start to ratchet up its shrill ideological pressure. Since taking office in 1998, Chávez has had a stormy relationship with his powerful northern neighbor. Chávez, who established close ties with Washington's anathema, Cuban President Fidel Castro, criticized U.S.-led efforts for a free trade zone in the Americas, which he insisted would primarily benefit the U.S., while opposing the war in Iraq, resulting in no mystery as to why he has long been so reviled by the Bush administration. Tensions have been bristling between the two nations particularly since April 2002 when Chávez, the democratically elected president, was briefly removed from power in a coup which involved U.S. funding.

A maverick politician and former paratrooper, Chávez accused (not without merit) Washington of sponsoring his attempted overthrow as well as supporting a devastating oil lockout in 2002-3. Not one to easily soften his language, Chávez bluntly referred to the United States as "an imperialist power." What is more, according to the Venezuelan leader, Bush had plans to have him assassinated. In a further rhetorical sortie, Chávez warned that if he were killed the United States would have to "forget Venezuelan oil."

In a series of recent television reports Fox News has derided the firebrand leftist leader, presenting the current Venezuelan political habitat entirely from the perspective of the country's conservative middle-class opposition as well as the Bush administration.

In siding with the opposition, Fox News joins the ranks of almost all of the Venezuelan television stations including Radio Caracas TV and Venevision (see Nikolas Kozloff's Thursday report, "Chávez Launches Hemispheric, "Anti-Hegemonic" Media Campaign in Response to Local TV Networks Anti-Government Bias) which have launched a vitriolic and highly personalized savaging of Chávez over the past few years. In his reports, Fox reporter Steve Harrigan speaks solely with members of the Venezuelan opposition and shows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice critical of Chávez. Of course, Fox News has the right to present the news as distortedly as it sees fit. However, its exclusive adherence to anti-Chávez sources completely caricatures the station's claim to be "fair and balanced." In fact, when it comes to Venezuela, it strives to be a propaganda mill.

(snip - much more)

[Nothing Without Hope]

88. HERE are some Chavez stories we WON'T EVER be seeing on FOX

unless it's attempts to discredit them. Oooooh, they're gonna HATE this! :evilgrin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1735880
Thread title: DU - Venezuela's CITGO to Provide Cheap Gas for US Hospitals, Nursing Homes and
NNN0LHI LBN Mon Aug-29-05 09:11 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1735871&mesg_id=1735871
Thread title: Venezuela offers fuel, food to hurricane-hit US
NNN0LHI LBN Mon Aug-29-05 09:07 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2044609
Thread title: Venezuela offers fuel, food to hurricane-hit US
mikelewis GD-P Mon Aug-29-05 09:38 PM

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.