Tag: mark levin
Great MAGA Crack-Up Features Antisemites, Ultra-Zionists And (Of Course) Misogynists

Great MAGA Crack-Up Features Antisemites, Ultra-Zionists And (Of Course) Misogynists

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” ― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack-Up

It was always only a matter of time: MAGA, with its racial purity obsession and America First tendencies, was always the strangest of bedfellows with the Miriam Adelson wing of the Trump administration. Shared Islamophobia, panic about sharia law coming to the local school board, and state harassment and deportation of pro-Palestinian professors, students and writers could only hold it together for so long.

The irreconcilable differences are exploding into the open at the Heritage Foundation, a formerly mainstream Republican policy shop that went all in for Trumpism and is now being accused of helping mainstream one of America’s coarsest Nazi sympathizers.

Last week, Tucker Carlson aired a long interview with Nick Fuentes, the young leader of the “Groyper” wing of the new right. With Carlson at his studio in Maine, Fuentes was more restrained than usual (he’s compared Jews killed in the Holocaust to “cookies baked in an oven” and has said “organized Jewry” is working to control banks, media and government). Carlson did not quiz him on his past statements. He did respond with gentle disagreement a few times, suggesting that as a multiracial and multiethnic nation, Americans should not be segmented into self-interested identity groups, as Fuentes was arguing. Of course, Tucker has spent a lot of his own media capital doing just that – hosting Darryl Cooper, a Nazi apologist whom he referred to as the “best and most honest popular historian in the United States” on his podcast, for example.)

The outrage (fake or real?) was swift. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal editorial board issued an op-ed about the fracas with the headline “The New Right’s Antisemites” – as if they were only just waking up to the fact that their ethnonationalists could not long co-exist with non-white non-Christian Americans. Florida Rep. Randy Fine (R-FLL) called Carlson “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America” and accused him of leading a “modern-day Hitler Youth.” Fine also cancelled a planned event with Heritage.

In Washington, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts voiced big support for Tucker Carlson in a tweeted video statement. “Conservatives should feel no obligation to support any foreign government” when such support doesn’t serve American interests, he said. “My loyalty as a Christian and an American is to Christ first and America always.” He then called out pressure from “the globalist class” – a phrase often seen as referencing Jews.

The video statement landed like the proverbial turd in the swimming pool. Lawyer Mark Goldfeder, who is Jewish, announced he was resigning from the Foundation’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. “I cannot serve under someone who thinks Nazis are worth debating,” Goldfeder wrote.

Roberts’ chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, then doubled down, calling out Heritage dissidents who were criticizing his boss online and accusing those who expressed outrage at Carlson’s softball interview of “virtue signaling.” Roberts then abruptly deployed Neuhaus to a different office – a wing of the Heritage foundation that happens to be run by a white Christian nationalist with open anti-Jewish inclinations of his own.

Scott Yenor is a misogynist superfreak from the great state of Idaho who entered the national MAGA mainstream via the odious hatchery of the Claremont Institute. He was forced to resign from a university board in Florida earlier this year after reports of his past statements about American Jews, including that they shouldn’t be considered for national leadership. The batshittery doesn’t end there. Yenor has advocated that the medical and legal professions ban women because they are “medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome.” He is also a founding member of a secret society of prominent white Christian nationalist men planning for what they call a “national divorce.”

None of that was a hindrance to getting hired at Heritage. Last month, Yenor crowed on Twitter about his new job as Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies. While Neuhaus has since announced he is resigning from Heritage altogether, Yenor remains burrowed in at Simon Center, which the foundation’s website calls “the center that safeguards the heritage of Heritage … dedicated to preserving the intellectual and moral underpinnings of our nation’s Founding.”

None of this is surprising. Heritage Foundation founder, political strategist Paul Weyrich, was one of the most effective and extremist religious zealots to operate in American politics in the last century. Kevin Roberts is an ideal inheritor of that vision. Before coming to DC, he ran a Catholic university in Wyoming that produced righty culture warrior kids who would complain to local shops about the impropriety of advertising bras on mannequins (“upsetting to male students”) and who held anti-LGBTQ “traditional marriage picnics.”

This ugly war is breaking out all over. As John Ganz noticed in his essay Who Will Win the GOP Civil War? when right wing radio screamer Mark Levin criticized Fuentes, Tucker, and Candace Owens in a recent rant about their antisemitism, he sounded “less bombastic than shrill. The fact is, Levin seems nervous. And he should be. The momentum is not on their side. Go on YouTube and look at the comments. They are all anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. “

Russ Vought’s wife and Heritage VP of communications Mary Grace Vought – whose side hustle with a Texan out in Oklahoma we recounted in a recent episode of the Freakshow – took time out of whatever Beltway white Christian nationalist hypocrites do on Sundays to issue a tweet from her personal account. No, the policy tank was not about to cancel Roberts – not yet anyway: “Online rumors about a recent meeting of the Heritage Board of Trustees are completely baseless,” she announced.

Obviously those of us revolted by Project 2025 relish this spectacle. Anyone who has been paying any attention to the “no enemies to the right” Nazified big tent of American conservatism could not have predicted any other outcome. But it is also terrifying. To get a sense of sensibility, read this defense of young racist Paul Ingrassia today. The brain trust of the MAGA movement has always flirted with antisemitism – Bronze Age Pervert for example, whose revolting book is in the back pocket of most young Trumpist staffers on the Hill, is explicitly anti-Jewish. Most of the eugenicists, ethnonationalists, and trad Caths who comprise the MAGA movement’s intellectual core are all-in for racial and religious purity.

Now, these highbrow men with dirty fascist theories are angry about a midwestern rube who talks rough getting mainstreamed. Perhaps they’re jealous.

Laura Fields is a political scientist and author of the new book, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. Fields told me:

It was only a matter of time until far-right antisemitism became a real issue for them. For years now people across the MAGA New Right, including Yoram Hazony, have been arguing and perhaps pretending that antisemitism is really a problem of the left. Meanwhile, again and again, influential young people and staffers on the New Right – in the chats and on X and beyond – keep being exposed for their gross antisemitic humor or use of Nazi symbology, and the leaders of the movement kept silent (the important exception here is Sohrab Ahmari, who proves the rule). Now Kevin Roberts has gone too far. But he and others have been giving cover to the extreism – and not just antisemitism but also misogyny, homophobic bigotry, and at times racism – for many years now.

AUTHOR NOTE: I will be continuing the conversation with Laura Fields on Substack Live Thursday, November 6 at 11 AM Eastern time. You won’t want to miss it.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow



Fox Host Who Mentioned Eastman Coup Plot Helped To Conceive It

The Only Fox Host Who Mentioned Eastman Coup Helped Conceive It

Fox News is burying Thursday’s revelations about the plot by then-President Donald Trump and Trump lawyer John Eastman to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to illegally reject electors from key states that supported Joe Biden and thus subvert the election to keep Trump in office, detailed during Thursday’s hearing of the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The only mentions of that conspiracy during Fox’s prime-time block Thursday night came from Fox host Mark Levin – who apparently worked with Eastman to develop the plot and spoke out on Thursday in support of it.

Former Pence legal counsel Greg Jacob described at Thursday’s hearing Eastman’s scheme for Pence, during the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress to count Electoral College votes, to either reject the votes from some states outright or send them back to their state legislatures for review. According to Jacob, during one meeting in which Eastman sought to pressure Pence to participate, the Trump lawyer acknowledged that the plot was illegal. The committee also aired video testimonies of other Trump aides saying that they had told Trump the plan was illegal, and produced an email from after the riot in which Eastman sought a presidential pardon.

J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal appeals judge and conservative icon who advised Pence with regard to the scheme, warned at the hearing’s conclusion that “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.”


“That’s not because of what happened on Jan. 6,” he added. “It’s because to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024 — if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election — that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election. But succeed.”

Fox “news side” programs Your World and Special Report each ran news packages on the story that day, sandwiched around the “opinion side” panel show The Five, where discussion of January 6 was limited to sympathy for the perpetrators. Then at 7 p.m. ET, the real Fox came on, and the coverage of the hearing essentially vanished.

Eastman’s name was mentioned only once after that – by Levin, who in an appearance on Hannity criticized the select committee for not producing “professors on the left who actually agreed with John Eastman’s position before it was John Eastman’s position.” The Fox host, who has long publicly supported Eastman’s legal theory, went on to allege that “it is not clear under the 12th Amendment what the responsibilities of the vice president of the United States are and how they are limited.”

Neither Levin nor Sean Hannity noted that Levin was not just a commentator who supported Eastman’s plot, but apparently an active participant in its development.

In May, Eastman sought to prevent the release to the January 6 committee of a dozen emails he exchanged with a person matching Levin’s description. According to the filing, Eastman was communicating with Levin in order to collaborate with him on the litigation in Levin’s role as an attorney, and thus the emails should be protected by lawyer-client privilege. Notably, Eastman reportedly first caught Trump’s attention by expounding on a nearly limitless view of Trump’s legal authority during a 2019 appearance on Levin’s Fox program.

Levin’s comments on Hannity were the only meaningful discussion of the coup attempt on Fox’s evening “opinion” block. Jesse Watters, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham all ignored the substance of Thursday’s hearing on their programs (Ingraham did, however, host Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene [R-GA] to defend the rioters).

On Friday morning, the story was all but absent from Fox & Friends.


It’s not hard to figure out why Fox hosts aren’t covering Trump’s coup attempt – they regret that it didn’t succeed. And when Republicans attempt a similar scheme in the future, as Luttig suggested they would, the network’s propagandists will be actively supporting it.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox News Drops Durham Smear After Clinton Hints At 'Actual Malice'

Fox News Drops Durham Smear After Clinton Hints At 'Actual Malice'

In the days after special counsel John Durham, tasked with investigating the FBI probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, filed a pretrial motion on February 11, Fox News provided an astounding amount of coverage at a breakneck pace, falsely claiming it proved 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton spied on the Trump campaign. However, coverage of the story slowed dramatically after Clinton accused the network of “getting awfully close to actual malice” in its reporting.

A Media Matters review of Fox News transcripts found that from February 11 through February 24, 2022, Fox's total coverage of the Durham filing was more than 11 hours over 149 segments. Eighty-five percent of that was before Clinton alleged Fox of “malice”; just 15 percent was after.

Contrary to framing from right-wing media, which generally ran hog wild with the story, Durham’s filing alleges that a lawyer linked to the Clinton campaign shared internet traffic data from networks near the White House and Trump Tower with the CIA. The filing does not allege that the data were obtained illegally or that the Clinton campaign directed the effort, nor does it provide evidence that the data were collected after former President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

From February 13, when Fox first mentioned the story, through the 3 p.m. EST hour on February 17, when Clinton commented about the network's coverage approaching “malice,” Fox covered the story for 9 hours and 23 minutes total. From then onward through February 20, Fox spent 1 hour and 40 minutes on the story: The network covered it for 5 minutes on February 18, 17 minutes on February 19, and 56 minutes on February 20.

  • Fox News coverage of Durham investigation "bombshell" falsely alleging Clinton spied on Trump

A significant portion of Fox’s coverage after Clinton’s “malice” comment was on the February 20 edition of Life, Liberty & Levin, where host Mark Levin spent 35 minutes on the Durham investigation and false allegations from Trump that the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign spied on his own. Levin has been making these unsubstantiated accusations for years. Since then, Fox appears to have dropped the subject entirely; there was only a single mention of the story which Trump made during an interview on February 23’s The Ingraham Angle.

In between accusing mainstream media of ignoring the story, Fox and other right-wing media’s coverage falsely framed the Durham filing as a “bombshell” proving Clinton is a “certified political criminal,” and “the real insurrectionist” who “tried to steal the election by spreading misinformation.” Meanwhile, Durham attempted to distance himself from right-wing coverage of his filing.

Such pontificating was not relegated to the network’s opinion programming; Fox’s straight-“news” shows were just as culpable in pushing the false narratives of the Durham filing. Nearly 4 hours of coverage was on so-called “news” shows like The Story with Martha MacCallum (44 minutes), America Reports with John Roberts and Sandra Smith (37), Special Report with Bret Baier (33), and America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino (32).

But Fox’s opinion shows provided the most coverage with more than 7 hours in total. Leading the pack was the network’s premiere weekday morning talk show Fox & Friends with 1 hour and 3 minutes. Following closely behind was Hannity (58 minutes), Fox & Friends First (50), and Fox & Friends Weekend (43).


  • Fox News coverage of Durham investigation "bombshell" falsely alleging Clinton spied on Trump

Clinton’s accusation of “actual malice” holds real legal meaning: The 1964 decision in The New York Times v. Sullivan established “actual malice” as the legal threshold to prove defamation of a public figure; 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times hinges on the same legal standard. This wouldn’t be the first time Fox found itself in legal hot water for its reporting: Dominion Voting Systems Corp. and Smartmatic are suing the network for knowingly pushing false information about election fraud.

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for any of the terms “Durham” (including misspellings), “Special Counsel,” or “Clinton” not within close proximity to “Bill” each within close proximity to any of the terms “Trump,” “Russia,” “Sussmann,” “White House,” or “server” from February 11, 2022, through February 24, 2022.

We included segments, which we defined as instances when Durham’s investigation was the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the investigation. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the investigation with one another. We also included mentions, which we defined as instances when a single speaker discussed the investigation without another speaker engaging with the comment, and teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the investigation scheduled to air later in the broadcast. We rounded all times to the nearest minute.

We split Fox programs into “news” and “opinion” sides. We defined “news” programs as those with anchors, such as Bret Baier or Shannon Bream, while we defined “opinion” programs as those with hosts, such as Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham, at the helm. We used the designations from each anchor’s or host’s FoxNews.com author page. We also considered the format of the program; we defined those using a panel format, such as Outnumbered and The Five, as “opinion.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World