Fox News and other conservatives are busy attacking Attorney General Eric Holder for assuring the public that law enforcement will not tolerate any acts of violence or discrimination in the wake of the Boston Marathon terror attack. But their latest feigned outrage ignores that hate crimes against Muslims are a very real concern. 

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly covered the story on the April 30 edition of America Live, hosting Fox contributor Michelle Malkin, who mocked the “phantom threats of hate crime epidemics that have never happened.” (This was the second straight day Kelly had devoted a segment to expressing outrage about Holder’s common sense comments.) 

Other conservatives lashed out at Holder for his vow to defend religious minorities in America.

Fox’s weird attempt to push back against Holder’s pledge fit nicely into Fox’s frequently anti-Muslimprogramming. It also highlighted how little interest Fox has in the larger issue of anti-Muslim violence.  

I noted last week how Fox News remains largely blind to acts of right-wing extremist terror and political violence because that storyline doesn’t fit into the cable channel’s preferred narrative about Muslim terrorists, or Fox’s eagerness to assign collective blame onto the Muslim-American community.

Here’s a recent timeline:

• Dearborn MI, January 2011: A man is arrested with a vehicle full of explosives he intended to use to blow up a local mosque. 
• Queens, NY, January 2012: A Molotov cocktail was thrown at an Islamic center. The suspect reportedly told police he intended “to inflict as much damage as possible and take out as many Muslims and Arabs as possible.”
• Lombard, IL, August 2012: An acid-filled bottle was thrown at an Islamic school during the nighttime Ramadan prayers.
• Joplin, MO, 2012: The local mosque burned to the ground one month after it was the target of an arson attack.
• Toledo, OH, September 2012: Authorities ruled that a gasoline fire on the main floor of the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo was the result of an arson attack.
• San Antonio, TX, November 2012: A man was arrested for threatening to kill as many people as possible at the Islamic Academy of San Antonio.
• Fremont, CA, December 2012: A man entered the Ibrahim Khalillullah Islamic Center and threatened to shoot everyone.
• Fayette, GA, January 2013: The windows of a Muslim house of prayer were shot out at 2 a.m.
• Oklahoma City, OK, April 2013: Vandals spray-painted racial slurs on the walls of the American Muslim Association.  

H/T: MMFA

Some conservatives outraged over Google’s choice to feature a César Chávez doodle instead of something Easter-related were especially angry because they mistook César Chávez for the far more polarizing Hugo Chávez. March 31 is Cesar Chavez Day, not the late Hugo Chávez’s 86th birthday, as some have claimed.

It didn’t help that conservative Twitter watchdogs Twitchy, led by Michelle Malkin, misidentified the Google doodle in question as Hugo.

For people still confused about the difference between Hugo Chávez and César Chávez, try Google. Or Bing!

H/T: Buzzfeed

There’s this new hashtag #LiberalTips2AvoidRape that’s now on its second day of trending on Twitter.

For the uninitiated, this isn’t an example of right-wingers deciding out-of-the-blue to be insensitive to rape victims. They have their reason, and his name is Joe Salazar, a first-term Democratic state representative in Colorado. On Friday, Salazar spoke on the state House floor in support of House Bill 13-1226, which would eliminate “the authority of a concealed handgun permit holder to possess a concealed handgun on the campus of an institution of high education.” In other words, Salazar’s bill would ban concealed firearms on college campuses in Colorado. Opponents of the proposed legislation maintain that banning concealed carry on campuses would make it harder for students to protect themselves against mass shooters and rapists on school grounds.

Salazar came down on the side of those who believe that more loaded guns on college campuses is a terrible idea. (This isn’t such a radical opinion if you look at the data.) Hedelivered the following rebuttal on the state House floor:

It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop… pop a round at somebody.

There’s footage of the speech here.

It’s pretty clear what Salazar was trying to say: Frightened college kids carrying handguns might result in unintended casualties. You could argue that it was clumsily phrased, but there isn’t anything nefarious. The statement was so blah that the Colorado House Republican minority didn’t bother to issue a press release about Salazar’s statement. At least not until after conservative bloggers, seeking to brand somebody the Democratic Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin, commenced their social-media freak-out during the long President’s Day weekend.

Salazar was labeled the new poster boy for the “real war on women,” and painted as someone who denies women the right to protect themselves against sexual assault. He was portrayed as an out-of-touch, gun-stealing lefty who promoted blowing a whistle over actually fighting off an attack. Many also latched onto Salazar’s “you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped,” upgraded the meaning to something around the lines of, “women can’t ever tell when they’re about to get raped/getting raped,” and voilà! New Todd Akin.

“It’s not ‘rape-rape’ until a male Dem gives his stamp of approval, you dumb broads,” an anonymous staff writer wrote at this website founded by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin. Her site has been at the forefront of the Salazar-related uproar. Dana Loesch, Glenn Beck, Herman Cain’s CainTV, folks at Fox News, and many others piled on accordingly.

Another reason why Mother Jones rocks!

h/t: Asawin Suebsaeng at Mother Jones

The evil kook is at it again: Recently writing for fellow former CNN “contributor” Erick Erickson’s RedState blog, callous RWNJ asshole Dana Loesch is peddling even more distortions on guns and women. The victim of Loesch’s misleading lies: Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar (D-COLD31) for defending rape whistles and supporting a concealed weapons ban on college campuses.

KDVR, Denver’s FOX affiliate:

DENVER — First-year state Rep. Joe Salazar is apologizing for a statement during Friday’s debate over a concealed weapons ban on college campuses that has drawn the ire of conservatives across the blogosphere.
In arguing in favor of the ban, Salazar, D-Thornton, said that women on college campuses don’t need guns to feel that they’re safe. 

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” Salazar said on the House floor. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.” 

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong.

But that only served to egg on the right-wing morons, such as Loesch and Malkin.

She wrote in her RedState blog her usual distortionist BS:

Chill, women, says Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar. While arguing for the disarmament of college students, Salazar says that even if women feel like they’re going to be raped, they may not, so who needs a firearm for protection?  

This is the real “war on women” I’ve talked about: the progressive insistence that women disarm. Women, according to Rep. Salazar, are hysterical things which shoot indiscriminately at any and everything. 

This “feel like you’re going to be raped” nonsense is as poorly-worded as the “shut that whole thing down” drama from last fall. If Democrats don’t swiftly condemn this, I see this used as a tactic to showcase the vast lack of respect Democrats have for a woman’s right to self defense.

While she attacked Salazar, Loesch had the nerve to defend 2012 Senate candidate and former Congressman Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks. BTW, Mrs. Liaresch, Salazar is NOT advocating “disarment” of women. She also falsely accused Democrats having a lack of respect for women.

Salazar claims to have a record of defending women’s rights but his actions to disenfranchise them of their Second Amendment rights are completely contradictory to that claim. One in four collegiate women report rape and one in five are raped. Salazar wants to deprive women of their right to defense with these odds? Just blow your rape whistles and pray that an attacker represents the “safe zone” boundaries? The best apology is a reversal of his war on women.

This claim by her is absolutely pants-on-fire false.


She took to Twitter to further demonize Salazar (and by extension, the Democratic Party):

“You don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped” or like, rape-raped. So whistles are a good bet, says Dem Rep. Salazar.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Because women are hysterical little things who just shoot indiscriminately, according to Dem Rep. Joe Salazar. #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

This is what Democrat males think of a woman’s right to self defense: bit.ly/15qwqGB
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

A woman’s right to self defense is under attack in this country from Dems like Salazar. #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

#COLeg Dem Salazar says women don’t need guns if they “feel like they’re going to be raped” bit.ly/15qwqGB #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Unless #COLeg Dems swiftly condemn Salazar and he apologizes for his remarks, I’ll assume they endorse this “shut it down” thinking.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Rapists can’t enter “safe zones.” Didn’t you know? Just like werewolves can’t enter holy ground. #Salazar #COLeg #waronwomen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Updated with the ridiculous advice the Univ of Colorado gives to women to avoid attacks. You won’t believe it: bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 18, 2013

Re. Joe Salazar, the Democrat who made the woman and rape comment, is on Twitter here: @housesalazar . Story: bit.ly/15qwqGB#COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

I’m offended by the sanctioning silence of @cohousedems on @housesalazar ‘s prejudiced remark against women and firearms. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Real #waronwomen: @housesalazar wants to disarm women, leave them at the mercy of attackers because he thinks they can’t handle guns. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Assuming @cohousedems approve of @housesalazar ‘s offensive and sexist characterization of women and rape unless condemned. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Yikes. Still no response from @cohousedems on Rep. Salazar’s truly offensive remark on women and rape bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

1 in 5 women raped during college years. @housesalazar says they’re too ditzy to handle firearms bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

1 in 4 college women report rape. bit.ly/XoWuNP @cohousedems want to legislate away a woman’s right to self defense on campus. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

At this point I’m rather shocked that Dems in #COLeg think it’s permissible for women to even attend college.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Dana Loesch, you are a disgrace to your own Goddamn gender and to gun owners!

Maybe if women stayed in the kitchen making sandwiches & didn’t go to college, there wouldn’t be a rape problem, right @cohousedems ? #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

UPDATE: Salazar’s contradictory apology: bit.ly/15qwqGB #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

It’s a nothingburger apology that ignores the statistics. Salazar justifies his offensive remark by saying it served as an example. #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Furthermore, Salazar didn’t rescind his original insinuation that women are too stupid to handle firearms. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Shorter Salazar: I’m sorry if you women were offended that I basically said you were too stupid to handle firearms. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Shorter Salazer: My essentially saying you women were too stupid to handle firearms was just an example to explain disarmament. #COleg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

For the record, rapists approve of disarming women: danaloeschradio.com/rapists-agree-… #COLeg
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 19, 2013

Another conservative loon on Twitter, @RichardRSmithJr, is making this the “Democrats have a full-blown Todd Akin on their hands” fallacy:

Democrats Have A Full-Blown Akin (@housesalazar) On Their Hands #guncontrol nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/20… via @foxnation via @dloesch @cohousedems
— #IAmAndrewBreitbart(@RichardRSmithJr) February 19, 2013

Fellow Colorado resident and deranged nutjob Michelle Malkin joined in on the Salazar-bashing:

As RedState reports, on Friday, Salazar argued against concealed carry on college campuses in favor of call boxes, whistles and “safe zones.” Why? Because you as a woman might “feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be” — better to head to the call box and let a man with a gun decide if the danger is real or not (if he shows up in time, that is).

You are such a crybaby, Dana! Get over it, and no, progressives/liberals/Democrats like Salazar are NOT “anti-gun”, “anti-women”, or “pro-rapist.”

More on Loesch’s idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:
Dana Busted: NRA shill Loesch falsely accuses Missouri Dems of proposing “gun confiscation”
Dana Busted: Dana Loesch visits CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, tells more tall tales on national TV
Dana Busted: Unhinged Moron Dana Loesch on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight: “There Is No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon”
Dana Busted: Wingnut extraordinaire Dana Loesch attacks Piers Morgan and “anti-gun” liberals
Loesch on KFTK’s The Dana Show: Encouraging her listeners to buy a gun for Christmas

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blgospot.com)

Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin is very angry. Again.

Malkin is very angry the “lap dog” press is being so mean to Mitt Romney and is making a big deal about the “47 percent” comments he made behind closed doors to wealthy donors about how nearly half of Americans are lazy, irresponsible and unwilling to work hard to improve their lives.

Typing off the age-old conservative script, Malkin robotically blamed the press for Romney’s latest campaign stumble, claiming there’s a conspiracy among journalists and Democrats to shift the attention away from Obama and focus on alleged Romney gaffes.

But there’s a slight problem this time around with the blame game: Lots of conservative pundits, such as The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol (as well as Republican members of Congress), have also denounced Romney’s “47 percent” comments as irresponsible and misguided.  

Malkin’s response? Fox News contributor Kristol’s part of the media problem and he’s in on the colluded effort to doom Romney’s campaign!

The intramural name-calling highlights the right-wing media fracture visible in the wake of Romney’s “47 percent” debacle. Sides are being taken as to whether Romney’s remarks were imprudent (i.e. “stupid and arrogant,” as Kristol put it), or whether they can be used as a rallying cry to rescue his campaign.

More traditional Republican partisans in the press, such as the New York Times’ David Brooks (“Thurston Howell Romney”)  and the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan (“Time For An Intervention”), have come down hard on Romney and belittled his campaign efforts.

By contrast, name-callers like Malkin and the more radical, Tea Party-leaning elements of the far-right media, including Fox News, have cheered the candidate’s derogatory remarks and urged Romney to repeat them often on the campaign trail.

For this faction, virtually any criticism of their candidate is deemed off-limits, and heretics like Kristol must be publicly condemned.

h/t: Eric Boehlert at MMFA

Malkin: Newly Improved Fuel Standards Will “Cost Untold American Lives.” In a column featured by Fox Nation, The Washington Examiner, and several other conservative outlets, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin called fuel economy standards a “draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.” In the column, titled “Obama’s Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax,” Malkin pointed to research on previous fuel economy standards to claim that the new standards are “lethal”:

These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police “CAUTION” tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll. [MichelleMalkin.com, 8/29/12] [Fox Nation, 8/29/12] [Newsbusters, 8/29/12] [CNSNews.com, 8/29/12] [Townhall, 8/29/12] [Washington Examiner, 8/29/12]

But Standards Were Reformed To Remove Incentives For Smaller Vehicles

Expert: New Fuel Economy Standards “Will Have Little Impact On Safety.” Mark Jacobsen, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of California - San Diego, told Media Matters that, in accordance with a study he conducted, the new fuel economy standards “will have little impact on safety.” Jacobsen’s 2011 study found previous standards had provided incentives for carmakers to simply build smaller and potentially less safe cars while continuing to produce the same amount of light trucks. But as Jacobsen explained in an email to Media Matters, the new standard will encourage automakers to use advanced technology to improve fuel economy, rather than simply building smaller cars:

Under the old standards automakers instead had to meet a constant, fixed fuel economy target and they could do that simply by building smaller cars, or, more likely, through a combination of building smaller cars and using better technology.  Under the new standard they will instead do much of the savings via technology alone; building smaller cars only gets them a tougher fuel economy rule to meet so [it] doesn’t help them as much as it used to.  As a result, the size (and safety outcomes) of vehicles in our car fleet may remain much the same as they are today. (this is one of the findings in my paper)

In sum, the improvements in fuel economy under the new rule will likely come through technologies that are less visible, like hybrid engines and improvements in engine efficiency, and so will have little impact on safety. [Email exchange, 8/30/12, emphasis added] [American Economic Review, 2011]

Research: New Materials Help Reduce Weight And Increase Safety. In a 2006 study published in American Scientist, two researchers found that improving cars’ fuel economy by making them lighter doesn’t necessarily mean compromising safety, partly because the increased use of new materials “offers automotive engineers the means to fashion vehicles that are simultaneously safer and less massive than their predecessors”:

We have also conducted our own analyses and come to the conclusion that the claim that lighter vehicles are inherently dangerous to those riding in them is flawed. For starters, all else is never equal; other aspects of vehicle design appear to control what really happens in a crash, as reflected in the safety record of different kinds of vehicles. What’s more, the use of high-strength steel, light-weight metals such as aluminum and magnesium, and fiber-reinforced plastics now offers automotive engineers the means to fashion vehicles that are simultaneously safer and less massive than their predecessors, and such designs would, of course, enjoy the better fuel economy that shedding pounds brings. [American Scientist, March-April 2006]

h/t: MMFA