CNN’s Rick Sanchez on Thursday actually asked an Arizona state Congressman, "What is your beef with illegal immigration?"

Imagine that, a so-called journalist asking an elected official what his beef is with people breaking the law.

Honestly, I had to watch this segment four times to convince myself that Sanchez said something this absurd.

On the other hand, those familiar with Sanchez’s work will view his interview with Arizona state Rep. Rick Murphy (R) par for the course (video follows with transcript and commentary):

RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: Mr. Murphy, thanks so much for joining us.

RICK MURPHY (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: My pleasure, Rick.

SANCHEZ: It seems this thing has gotten so heated, by the way. And I just want to start right from jump street, as they say. What is your beef with illegal immigration?

You thought I was kidding, right? Need to read that again a few times to absorb the stupidity?

I understand. I did as well.

Take a couple of cleansing breaths, and let’s continue: 

MURPHY: Well, Rick, the problem with illegal immigration is that it it’s — it is multifold. First of all, you have got some folks that are here that collect benefits and that put a burden on the taxpayers, and there is not enough balance to the benefit they’re providing…

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: OK. Just a quick — just a quick stoppage there. Just a quick stop. You know those people are paying taxes, right?

Now, when most of us think about paying taxes, we consider the federal and state income kind, correct? Not Sanchez: 

MURPHY: Some of them do pay some taxes, sure.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, they all pay taxes.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, no, Mr. Murphy, they all pay taxes, sir. Stop and think for a moment. Are you an elected official?

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Yes, I am, Rick.

SANCHEZ: So you think that people who come to this country all steal?

What? What does that have to do with paying taxes? Shhh. Wait. Sanchez is going to explain: 

MURPHY: I’m sorry. I didn’t quite catch that.

SANCHEZ: Do they all steal?

MURPHY: Well, no, they don’t all steal. But let me give you an example, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Just answer the question. Do they all steal? Do they all live in caves?

MURPHY: I don’t think very many of them live in caves, no.

SANCHEZ: OK. So, if they go to grocery store to buy goods, they pay taxes. It’s called the sales tax, right?

Well, first of all, five states don’t charge sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.

More importantly, 29 states and the District of Columbia completely exempt food purchased for home consumption from sales tax. Most other states offer lower tax rates or some kind of tax credits to offset their sales tax on groceries.

ONLY Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina tax such purchases at their regular sales tax level.

As such, Sanchez was once again showing his audience how little he knows:  

MURPHY: Well, most cities here don’t tax groceries. But, besides that…

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: OK. Let’s suppose.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Since you are going to be real smart…

You mean as opposed to being REAL DUMB? 

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: My wife and I are foster parents, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, let’s continue the conversation. I don’t want your talking points.

MURPHY: All right.

SANCHEZ: When a person comes to the United States, if they live here and they don’t steal and live under the cave, are they paying property taxes and sales taxes? 

MURPHY: If they buy a home, they’re paying property taxes, sure.

SANCHEZ: What if they rent a home and the person who rents it, who collects their rent charges them that property tax?

What? A landlord charging his tenant for his property tax? How often does THAT happen? 

MURPHY: Well, with our real estate market, there is not a real clear issue there.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Can you live in property in the United States, sir, without paying a property tax?

Obviously, the answer is "Yes" if you’re living with someone and NOT paying rent OR renting and you don’t have a bizarre landlord requiring you to pay his/her property taxes. Unfortunately, Sanchez’s bullying tactics clearly threw Murphy off: 

MURPHY: Not very easily. 

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

Can you buy something at a store without paying a sales tax?

MURPHY: Not in most states.

SANCHEZ: So, why do you go around telling Americans that these people don’t pay taxes, or some of them, as you say, when that…

MURPHY: I didn’t say they don’t pay taxes.

SANCHEZ: You just said that a minute ago. You said some of them do.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I said the costs they incur — I said the costs they incur do not balance out the costs, the taxes that they pay.

SANCHEZ: So, they pay — so, OK, so let’s just leave it at that. So, even illegal immigrants pay taxes right?

MURPHY: They do pay some.

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

Let’s move on to another point. Do you think that the benefits that they give — do you know any benefits that they give Americans?

MURPHY: That the illegal immigrants give Americans?

SANCHEZ: Yes. Yes. Like what?

MURPHY: Well, some companies and some people benefit from the cheap labor. But, on the other hand, you have fewer available jobs for Americans. And it drives down wages for Americans that do the same jobs. So, I’m not real sure that it’s clear that there’s a benefit there.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, you are right. You are right. And it’s very well stated.

But let me ask you this. How about Social Security? Do you know that illegal immigrants subsidize you and your Social Security to the tune of $7 billion, so that some day you can retire on money they put into the system that they can never collect? Study, "New York Times."

MURPHY: Well, Rick…

SANCHEZ: You should know that if you’re going to argue this stuff.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I would say that $7 billion is a drop in the bucket. For Social Security, that’s a drop in the bucket.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Seven billion dollars is a drop in the bucket?

Indeed it is. According to a new report by the Federation for Immigration Reform, illegal immigration is currently costing taxpayers $113 billion. As it is estimated that illegal immigrants are now paying about $13 billion in taxes, this means we’re losing about $100 billion a year.

Of course, if I brought this up in Sanchez’s presence, he’d disdainfully accuse me of being smart: 

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Compared to the total amount of the obligation? Compared to the total amount of the obligation, yes, it is.

SANCHEZ: Well, so did you know that?

MURPHY: Yes, I know that they do pay in. But they also do that mostly on the backs of people whose identities they have stolen. And it creates a huge burden and cost and inconvenience and disruption to those people’s lives.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Actually, once again, you are wrong. Did you know that most illegal aliens are given something by the federal government called a tax I.D. that allows the government off to collect Social Security taxes from them? Did you know that?

MURPHY: Rick, I realize that some of them have that. But I also realize that many of them have stolen identification. It happens in this state all the time. As a matter of fact, we probably lead the nation in it.

SANCHEZ: But here’s the point. And, look, I don’t mean to get into an argument with you.

You don’t mean to get into an argument with him? You’ve been arguing since the opening bell: 

SANCHEZ: But it’s almost like when we have these conversations, we only hear one side. And the bottom line is this, isn’t it? Tell me if I’m wrong.

Illegal immigrants in the United States have been all but recruited by businesses in the United States. They have said, here, come here. I want you to come to the United States. I have got a job for you.

And then when they get here, our U.S. government with our broken immigration system gives them the wherewithal or the tax I.D.s and all the other papers so that they can work legally, even though they’re not here legally. And now we hear folks like you saying, it’s all the illegal’s fault.

I guess I’m just trying to put this in perspective. Is it really?

MURPHY: Well, you kind of put words in my mouth. I don’t think I ever said it is all the illegal’s fault.

Now, nobody put a gun to their head and made them come here. But I would grant you that administrations from both sides of the aisle have done pretty much what you said and turned a blind eye.

SANCHEZ: Yes, you’re right.

MURPHY: And I don’t appreciate it from either side.

The fact of the matter is, Arizona is paying a disproportionate price for this problem because we’re right on the border. And California and Texas have their borders sealed much better than Arizona does. They have been intentionally funneled here, because they assumed that it would be too inhospitable and people would stop crossing, but that didn’t happen.

We need to have our border secured and we need to have that done first before we do anything, because people frankly don’t trust the federal government to do what they say they’re going to do. They need to prove themselves.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: You are 100 percent right. And I think most Americans watching this newscast would say, you are absolutely right. The federal government has to come up with some kind of system to control the borders and a system for comprehensive immigration reform.

Unfortunately, most of the time, the anger that comes from one side or the other doesn’t allow that to happen. And maybe that’s why guys like you and I need to have these conversations more often.

My thanks to you, Mr. Murphy, for taking time to join us. I enjoyed the respectable discourse.

MURPHY: My pleasure, Rick. Thanks for having me.

Amazing. If you needed any more proof that members of our media actually support illegal immigration, you got it in this segment.

As the proprietor of The Right Scoop noted, "It’s hard for me to believe that a CNN host would ask someone ‘what’s your beef with illegal immigration.’"

It’s not hard when the host is Rick Sanchez. 

Friday’s CBS Early Show devoted a six-minute segment in its 7:30AM ET half hour to the Saturday wedding of Chelsea Clinton. Correspondent Elaine Quijano reported on the event having "Eva Longoria’s florist" and "presidential party planners." Entertainment Tonight correspondent Diane Dimond added: "…they have porcelain port-a-potties for all of the guests….with music piped in."

Dimond went on to mention how the guest list would feature Hollywood liberals like Barbara Streisand and Steven Spielberg. Concluding her report, Quijano declared: "Now tonight the rehearsal dinner is reportedly set to take place nearby, at the 500-plus acre Grasmere estate. We are told, Harry, that guests will dine in an old stone barn overlooking a bucolic pastoral setting….they’re being asked to wear country chic." The segment did not raise any questions about the over-the-top extravagance of the affair, which is estimated to cost a few million dollars.

The Saturday Early Show plans to go even further in its coverage, featuring a special titled ‘A Chelsea Morning’ to commemorate the wedding.

After Quijano’s Friday Early Show report, co-host Harry Smith discussed further wedding details with Daily Beast senior correspondent Rebecca Dana and editor-at-large Lloyd Grove. Speaking of Chealsea Clinton, Smith observed: "…she has been basically shielded from this and now we cannot get enough of whatever is happening behind the scenes." Dana replied: "We’re eating it all up, yeah." She then remarked: "…mother and father Clinton, seem to be taking this very seriously, attacking it with the same vigor that they’ve attacked their political careers."  

Here is a full transcript of Quijano’s July 30 report:

7:30AM ET

HARRY SMITH: But first, tomorrow’s the big day for Chelsea Clinton and her fiancee Marc Mezvinsky. And never mind the guest list. There is rampant speculation about everything from designers to dollars and everything in between. CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano has the story.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Big Day; All Eyes on Chelsea Clinton Wedding]

ELAINE QUIJANO: A trench coat-clad Chelsea Clinton was spotted outside her Manhattan gym on Thursday, just days before she’ll don a designer wedding gown. Whether Oscar de La Renta or Vera Wang is still in question. But it’s clear the ultimate power couple is planning the ultimate wedding for their only child. Details about what kind of wedding more than $2 million can buy? Eva Longoria’s florist, presidential party planners, and-

DIANE DIMOND [ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT]: Well, they have porcelain port-a-potties for all of the guests at the rehearsal dinner and the wedding.

QUIJANO: Port-a-potties?

DIMOND: Porcelain port-a-potties with music piped in.

QUIJANO: President Obama says he didn’t make the guest list, but for good reason.

BARACK OBAMA: You don’t want two presidents at a wedding.

QUJANO: Who is on this guest list?

DIMOND: Well, ‘Entertainment Tonight’ has confirmed that Barbara Streisand is coming, Steven Spielberg, among many others.

QUIJANO: In downtown Rhinebeck, the uninvited guests, the media, have definitely arrived. Giving the small town some welcome attention.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL [RHINEBECK RESIDENT]: She could choose any town in the whole world but she decided to choose this little town.

QUIJANO: Amid the celebration, poignant moments of reflection for the father of the groom, Edward Mezvinsky.

EDWARD MEZVINSKY: They are strong, wonderful, loving, caring, and sensitive human beings.

QUIJANO: Now, some of the wedding guests are expected to stay here at the historic Beekman Arms Inn behind me. They could be arriving, of course, today. We’ll be keeping a very close eye on the situation here, Harry. Now tonight the rehearsal dinner is reportedly set to take place nearby, at the 500-plus acre Grasmere estate. We are told, Harry, that guests will dine in an old stone barn overlooking a bucolic pastoral setting. And Harry, they’re being asked to wear country chic.

SMITH: Country chic. Elaine Quijano in Rhinebeck this morning, thank you very much.

Is there more to the Shirley Sherrod story than the White House has let on – and the media has discovered? While the mainstream media continues to focus on the more sensationalistic, scandalous aspects of the story, a number of bloggers have unearthed facts that suggest further effort is needed to figure out Sherrod’s dealings with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sherrod’s involvement is not at all clear, nor is there definitive evidence of any wrongdoing. But Sherrod’s sudden presence in the spotlight has led to investigations that turn up some strange numbers.

In short, the 2008 farm bill earmarked $1.25 billion to compensate a predicted total of 86,000 African American farmers for discriminatory practices against them. But according to the Census Bureau, there are were 39,697 African American farmers in the nation in 2007, and even fewer in previous years.

This week the Obama administration announced it does not have the funds to pay that $1.25 billion. Yet the administration also announced that it will pay $1.5 billion in relief to farmers in Arkansas, leaving some wondering whether the recall of the $1.25 billion was more a matter of choice than necessity.

But first, some background. In 1997, 400 African American farmers sued the USDA, alleging discrimination in subsidy policy, and a range of other areas over the preceding 15 years. In the resulting court case, Pigford v. Glickman, the USDA agreed to pay $50,000 to each farmer. By then, the suit had become a class action, and USDA expected to have to pay roughly 2,000 farmers. 22,505 joined the suit.

Two years later, the USDA agreed to pay 16,000 of those farmers the agreed-upon $50,000 in compensation – just over $1 billion in total. But according to the USDA, a full 70,000 additional farmers claimed that they had submitted petitions for damages, but that those petitions were received late due to bureaucratic incompetence or poor legal representation.

The matter remained unresolved until 2008, when Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Barack Obama, D-Ill., teamed up to earmark $1.25 billion in that years farm bill to pay the outstanding claims.

But the 70,000 farmers who say they were wrongly denied damages plus the 16,000 who received $50,000 from the federal government exceeds the total 26,785 African American farmers present in the United States in 1999, and the 39,697 present today.

Then this week, seemingly out of the blue, the administration announced that it does not have the funds to pay out that $1.25 billion. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are outraged, claiming that "if the administration can find $1.5 billion within its administrative funds to pay mostly white farmers in Arkansas and other states, it should be able to pay black farmers who suffered discrimination."

They have a point. Something sketchy is going on here.

As for Sherrod’s role in the case, the farm cooperative owned by her and her husband was awarded a $13 million settlement last year, shortly before she was appointed to her post at the USDA. In addition, each of the Sherrods was paid over $150,000 for their "pain and suffering" – more than triple what was given to any other farmer, total.

All of these facts point to some sketchy practices at the USDA. Those practices, it seems, only came to light due to increased public attention given Sherrod and the USDA. Still, the mainstream media is fixated on the more sensationalist aspects of the story. It should turn its attention towards what could be a serious case of political malfeasance.

As San Francisco Chronicle columnist Willie Brown wrote on Sunday, "you don’t fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place."

Is the administration trying to prevent further investigation of USDA discrimination compensation policies?

Hollywood director Oliver Stone – who previously tried to rewrite history with his ultra-left conspiracy work of fiction "JFK" is at it again. But this time he’s not accusing the American government of murdering its own president.

Instead, he’s simply trying to stop the "Jewish domination of the media," so that the film industry can put Nazi leader Adolf Hitler "in context," as an "easy scapegoat," and "a product of a series of actions," in his upcoming 10-hour Showtime docudrama, "The Secret History of America."

This past weekend Stone told the Sunday Times in England: "We can’t judge people as only bad or good . . . Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support."

Under the false pretense of putting Hitler "in context," what Stone is really saying is that even the good guys like America and Great Britain helped him, which means he couldn’t have been all that bad.

That’s pretty hard to believe since it was the United States and Great Britain that heroically charged the shores of Germany in 1945 and crushed the Third Reich into pieces, striking so much fear into Hitler’s heart that he abandoned his country, and in one of history’s greatest acts of cowardice, killed himself.

Stone is correct that Hitler did have a lot of support, but it was mainly from the German people during the reign of the Third Reich from 1933-1945.

Despite the pathetic excuses made by historical revisionists, millions of Germans supported their Nazi leaders and the sadistic crimes they committed upon innocent Jews and other poor souls who found themselves and their children working as slaves in concentration camps before they were tortured and killed.

Stone seems to think he can produce his docudrama under the auspices of shedding new light, but he can’t because it’s no secret that the Nazis used Jewish slave labor to work in factories owned by German companies that had American counterparts like Ford Motor Company.

Stone’s misperception of politics and history should come as no surprise, however. On June 28, Stone told ABC "Good Morning America" anchor George Stephanopoulos that he "absolutely" believes Hugo Chavez is a good person, and after he met with Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he said, "Iran isn’t necessarily the bad guy." Instead, he condemned U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible."

In essence, the effect of Stone’s work will be an attempt at vindicating Adolf Hitler, the single worst person in the history of the world. This is because despite the tragedies caused by Mao, Stalin and other dictators, there was never a historical account of any leader or their pathetically weak followers taking sadistic pleasure in the pain, humiliation and torture they inflicted upon their victims. The Nazis didn’t just kill people. They enjoyed it and thrived off the sadness and powerlessness they caused their victims.

By even attempting to rationalize Hitler’s acts as merely economical or strategic, Stone runs the risk of legitimizing genocide, slave labor and torture. One can’t help but wonder what the emotional driving force is for Stone to do such a thing. Is it really a noble attempt to explain history or just a streak of anti-Semitic vindictiveness designed to disempower Jews in America?

Perhaps this quote from his Times interview sheds some light:
"The Jewish domination of the media," Stone professed, "there’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***ed up United States foreign policy for years."

Apparently, Oliver Stone has forgotten that it was Israel that remained America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East throughout the harsh decades of the cold war with the Soviet Union. He also forgets that many of the Jews that are in Washington today are elected officials to Congress that the American people democratically elected. Unlike Adolf Hitler, our Jewish congressional representatives never coerced anyone to vote for them.

Nazism is alive even today in both America and Germany. In fact, the Simon Wiesenthal Center still makes efforts to hunt down Nazi war criminals, but has a difficult time getting cooperation from the countries in which they are hiding. The operation’s chief Nazi hunter, Efraim Zuroff, wrote in his recent book, "Operation Last Chance," that there has been a growing ambivalence about Holocaust crimes, a morally flawed position that those cowardly, sick acts happened a long time ago and should be forgotten, and that prosecution at this time serves no purpose.

Those countries are wrong. Prosecution of war criminals or of any criminal always serves a purpose – justice.

Oliver Stone’s new series will only further encourage the growing ambivalence many people already have about Holocaust crimes and empower Fourth Reich Nazis who are trying to reignite the anti-Semitism that once flourished throughout Europe.

Anytime anyone makes excuses for the Nazis, they are empowering evil. Oliver Stone’s self-declared attempt at putting Hitler "in context" is a veiled anti-Semitic strike against Holocaust survivors and Jews just as his praise for America’s enemies like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are veiled strikes against the United States.

Oliver Stone is dead wrong. We can judge people as either all bad or good, and Adolf Hitler was bad – as is Oliver Stone and anyone else who distorts the truth to vindicate evil.

Crossposted at Big Hollywood 

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Will Washington’s failures lead to a second American Revolution?

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution – and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another. People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?" Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency. Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do. 

Is this Investor’s Business Daily editorial a wee bit over the top or compellingly spot on? 

It never ceases to amaze that Oliver Stone thinks Ronald Reagan was a dunce. When it comes to judging iron-fisted dictators and anti-American despots, Oliver Stone is the intellectually incurious simpleton. He thinks Reagan was stupid because he clung to an all-encompassing ideology. But so does Stone. He thinks every evil in the world came from corporations, especially American corporations, including those he uses to make himself millions.

How else would you explain the (new) mess Stone (again) has made as he prepares a 10-part documentary for Showtime on "The Secret History of America," including evaluations of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. In an interview with the Sunday Times of London, Stone declared Hitler was a monster, but he was apparently still America’s fault: "Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Doctor Frankenstein," Stone said. "German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support."

Stone unfortunately wasn’t finished. He proceeded to denigrate the importance of the Holocaust: "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than [to] the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]." The reason few people know this, according to Stone? "The Jewish domination of the media," he said. "There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—-d up United States foreign policy for years."

The major media thoroughly, and for the most part correctly, punished Mel Gibson within hours for a drunken anti-Semitic rant in 2006. But Stone has drawn a pass, since he’s made a raft of leftist films, and never one glorifying Jesus. Not everyone took the week off. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League proclaimed "Oliver Stone has once again shown his conspiratorial colors with his comments about ‘Jewish domination of the media’ and control over U.S. foreign policy. His words conjure up some of the most stereotypical and conspiratorial notions of undue Jewish power and influence."

Stone then apologized for downplaying the Holocaust: "In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret." He’s made clumsy associations before: in 1997, he was one of 34 celebrities to sign a letter comparing the treatment of Scientologists in Germany with persecution by the Nazis in the 1930s.

This man’s affinity for dictators hasn’t waned. He even came to the defense of Iranian president (and habitual Holocaust-denier) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible" and added "Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy, but we don’t know the full story!"

That’s the problem with Stone. He always purports to speak truth to power, but he’s never met a truth he couldn’t demolish.

What Stone always knows is that America is the bad guy. Anyone with the audacity to oppose this country, and better yet, slander it, is suddenly the sugary apple of Stone’s eye. He has made documentaries about hate-filled killers like Castro, and Yasser Arafat, and just last month, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez (with a pathetic box-office gross of $166,000). But Ahmadinejad turned him down. "While it is true that Oliver Stone is considered to be among the opposition in the U.S., the opposition is still part of the Great Satan," proclaimed his media adviser, Mahdi Kalhor.

Stone continues to see the gleam in many a dictator’s eye. In January, Stone told The Hollywood Reporter that "Stalin has a complete other story…Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good.’ Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply".

Apparently, these mass-murdering dictators are seen too narrowly by Americans: "I’ve been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes to understand their point of view," Stone proclaimed. "We’re going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them." Of course, that included blame for America. "Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."

Stone’s apologies for his remarks downplaying the Holocaust will probably prevent Showtime from heeding some Hollywood calls for canceling his "Secret History" series. But it’s amazing that Stone’s political and historical buffoonery continues to be presented by some interviewers and media executives as something wise and wonderful.

It would appear that someone at CNBC listened to the Mark Levin Show on Thursday. Either that, or someone at the network paid attention to his or her e-mail alerts and read my post that went up in the wee hours Friday morning (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog). Likely in response to our criticisms, CNBC has revised and "clarified" a report by CNBC staff writer Jeffrey Cox.

The network’s revised and "clarified" report still fails to sufficiently inform readers. In fact, the new version seems to be the result of a meeting where the topic of discussion was: "What are the least informative changes we can make while being technically correct?"

On his show Thursday night, Levin referred to Cox’s probably original version (now Google cached; copy saved here at my web host for future reference) addressing Deutsche Bank analysts’ fears that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the year will have a sharply negative economic impact. (For what it’s worth, I prefer to describe what’s coming as a plain-and-simple tax increase, simply because after what will have been eight years — 2003 through 2010 — everyone has long since gotten used to the current income tax structure.)

Here are the first two paragraphs of Cox’s report as found by Levin and yours truly (bold is mine):

The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said.

The cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush and covered those earning more than $250,000, but they are set to expire at the end of this year.

Levin in passing, and yours truly with detailed support, pointed out that Bush’s tax cuts were across the board in nature and have affected well over 100 million taxpayers each and every year since their passage. Cox could easily have learned that in five minutes or less of Googling or going through Internet news archives.

Going a bit further with my point than I did in my original post — Those "tax cuts" in some instances turned into de facto tax handouts for some lower- and middle-income filers. The 2003 law allows certain tax credits (e.g., the child tax credit) to be taken even if they amount to more than the amount of tax otherwise due. In the otherworldly language of Congress and the IRS, such credits are characterized as "refundable."

Here are the first two paragraphs as they now appear at CNBC, followed by the "clarification" that is now at the end of the article (HT to NewBusters commenter "charlestonjames" for catching this; bold is mine):

The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said.

The cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush and in part covered those earning more than $250,000, but they are set to expire at the end of this year. Tax decreases for lower-earning people likely will be continued, but the ones for the top end of the income scale are in danger of going away.

… Clarification: An earlier version of this story failed to state that the Bush tax cuts covered more than just those earning more than $250,000.

The response by "charlestonjames" to CNBC’s pathetic effort is spot-on: "Of course, they still refuse to acknowledge these were across-the-board tax cuts."

Really. Readers not familiar with the history might reasonably but erroneously infer that the revision’s references to "in part" and "lower-earning," along with the clarification’s "more than just those earning more than $250,000," mean that the Bush cuts only helped people making a bit less than $250,000.

It would have been so much easier from the start for Cox to merely write that "Across-the-board cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush, but they are set to expire at the end of this year."

Crucially, it would also have been accurate based on the facts on the ground at the moment. Despite the confident assertion in CNBC’s revision, there is absolutely no assurance that "Tax decreases for lower-earning people likely will be continued." C’mon, guys. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have had over 18 months to do this, and haven’t. Further, they have deliberately decided not to pass a budget and to keep the tax structure (and of course spending) on autopilot when the fiscal year 2011 begins on October 1. It’s more than a little likely that they’re not even going to bring up any other tax matters (or, of course, spending control) before the November elections.

Finally, there’s an error I didn’t bring up in my early Friday post that is in the first paragraph of both the original and revised versions.

It is simply not true that ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 will only affect "the wealthiest Americans." Doing so will instead extract more money from people who happen to be the "highest-earning Americans" starting next year, regardless of whether they have previously accumulated a great deal of wealth or are saddled with a mountain of debt to the point of having a negative net worth.

I can’t believe I have to explain this to the people who work for what is supposed to be the nation’s leading business channel. If Fox’s competitive effort overtakes them, sloppiness such as what is described here, and which has telltale signs of being deliberate, will go a long way towards explaining why.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

So much for the illusion of state’s rights.

Chris Matthews and Howard Dean on Thursday got into a heated argument about what was included in the controversial video excerpts Andrew Breitbart published at his website last Monday involving former USDA official Shirley Sherrod.

In the opening segment of the 5PM installment of MSNBC’s "Hardball," Matthews was discussing with the former Vermont Governor as well as Salon Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh the announcement that Sherrod intends to sue Breitbart.

After playing both videos posted at BigGovernment.com back on July 19, Matthews noted, "That part in there about redemptive revelation was actually in the initial tape."

He then asked Dean, "Why do you think if this was a complete slime job, why do you think Breitbart kept that in there?"

The Governor’s absolutely absurd answer started the fireworks (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, there you go. "I opened my eyes. I realized it wasn’t about black and white. It was, but it was about other things, about poverty." So, Joan, that part, that part in there about redemptive revelation was actually in the initial tape.

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Chris, that little snippet was. But it ends with, "I took him to one of his own." What she goes on to say is one of his own didn’t help him. He came back to her. She wound up helping him. She saved his farm. And then she goes on to tell this story, which is a story that I’ve told and to some extent Governor Dean has told it, too, about the way black and white people in the south were pitted against each other and they were always taught to fight one another when they really had more in common. She goes on to say repeatedly it’s about poverty. It’s about haves versus have-nots.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, but why do you think if this was a complete slime job, why do you think Breitbart kept that in there, Governor? Why did he keep in that part – let me let the Governor in here. Why did he put the redemptive part in here at all?

HOWARD DEAN: That’s not, I did not see that at in the original on the original website or…

Stop the tape. As you can see, Dean first said, "I did not see that in the original on the original website." This is important because he’s going to change his story: 

MATTHEWS: But it is.

DEAN: …or the original Fox…

Let’s take out Matthews’ comment to read the entire statement by Dean: "That’s not, I did not see that in the original on the original website or the original Fox…"

So, Dean at first said that this wasn’t what he saw at the website OR Fox. As the discussion ensued, this changed: 

MATTHEWS:…that’s the original website.

DEAN: Well, that’s not what I saw on Fox.

MATTHEWS: Well, what are you saying? We’re not showing the right thing here?

DEAN: I don’t know what you’re showing. But that was not…

MATTHEWS: You’re challenging us now.

DEAN: I’m saying I didn’t see that on…

MATTHEWS: You’re saying we made this up, that we put it in Breitbart’s blog and it wasn’t there?

DEAN: Now you sound like Chris Wallace.

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you.

DEAN: What I said was that’s not what I saw on Fox. I didn’t see that last piece about the redemption shown on Fox.

Actually, that’s not true. Just seconds ago Dean said that wasn’t what he saw at the website OR Fox: 

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Joan. The Governor doesn’t believe us now. What do you mean? You’re saying we just put something to (inaudible) Breitbart?

DEAN: Chris, I don’t know what that was. All I know is..

MATTHEWS: You don’t know what that was? I’m telling you it was from the Breitbart blog.

DEAN: That’s not what I saw on Fox.

MATTHEWS: Okay, Joan, will you help me out here? I thought Fox picked up — Fox had further edited the Breitbart blog, I didn’t know that.

WALSH: Truncated…

MATTHEWS: On their website.

WALSH: Chris, you know what happens in TV, and I’m not going to say this part is malicious. Different versions of the shortened clip were shown. And so, I think that sometimes it had the part about I realized it wasn’t about black and white. But the point was why it ended there was it ends with her taking him to one of his own and doesn’t go onto tell this, it’s a long story.

MATTHEWS: I understand it’s not full. And then the question is did Breitbart get the full bite from somebody who gave it to him? [...]

MATTHEWS: Governor, here’s the problem, that is what I remember was in the original. That was the original, and I just showed was the original Breitbart blog.

DEAN: When I saw the story, that wasn’t, the last piece about poor white people wasn’t in it.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, well it was in the one I saw, that’s for sure.

DEAN: And nor, I might add, the most interesting thing about that…

MATTHEWS: That’s why we had the dispute ten minutes ago, because that’s what I saw in the original blog.

DEAN: Okay, but that’s not what I saw on the network. I didn’t see the original blog.

Didn’t see the original blog? Well, that’s not what he said minutes ago, "That’s not, I did not see that in the original on the original website or the original Fox…" 

MATTHEWS: Okay, well, that’s what Breitbart put out. That’s what…

DEAN: He may have. He may have.

MATTHEWS: He did.

DEAN: Maybe Fox edited it further.

MATTHEWS: I’m just telling you that’s a fact. I know what came (inaudible). You can see five minutes after you walk off this set you can go check it come back if it’s not true, but that is in fact…

DEAN: I’m not disputing you. I never looked at the Breitbart…

MATTHEWS: That’s what gets murky here. Okay, thank you Howard Dean, thank you Joan Walsh.

The dishonesty on Dean’s part was striking and should make any network reconsider having him as a guest to talk on this subject.

The video Breitbart posted last Monday did INDEED contain the brief redemption section Matthews quoted, and for Dean to suggest it didn’t, or change his story midstream concerning seeing the website, was the height of gall.

Moreover, the discussion here was about the merits of Sherrod’s case about Breitbart. Yet, Dean just wanted to continue to focus on Fox News.

After getting smacked down by Chris Wallace for doing the same thing on "Fox News Sunday," and being shown to be 100 percent wrong in his assertions concerning FNC’s role in Sherrod’s firing by Bret Baier on Wednesday, the former Vermont Governor was now taken to task for his blatant dishonesty by an MSNBC host. 

Is even Matthews tiring of Dean’s obvious duplicity? 

Consider that in the 7PM installment of "Hardball," the opening segment was filmed live with Walsh as a guest, but Politico’s Ken Vogel was substituted for the former Vermont Governor.

Was his abysmal performance two hours earlier at all related to his absence in the later airing? 

Stay tuned.

Jeff Poor assisted with the video and transcript in this piece. 

New York Times reporters David Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes reported on Obama’s politically calculated visit to the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, N.J. in Thursday’s "Obama Trumpets Party’s Small-Business Bona Fides."

The paper’s political team let Obama fully sell himself as a down-home populist by completely skipping (in the print edition) the fact that Obama would be departing from a town in New Jersey to two glitzy fundraisers in the Times’s home town Manhattan. The Washington Post, on the other hand, did notice that Obama later traveled by helicopter to a fundraiser at the Four Seasons in Manhattan, then went on to Vogue editor Anna Wintour’s townhouse for another.

Calmes filed a report on the fundraisers Wednesday night for the paper’s "Caucus" blog: "After an afternoon of populism, lunching with small-business owners in New Jersey and gabbing with the opinionated ladies of ABC-TV’s "The View," President Obama ended his day on Wednesday at separate $30,400-a-person fundraisers here in Manhattan."

But those politics-as-usual details didn’t make it into the print story, leaving room for these vital nuggets: Obama "ordered a ’super sub with everything,’ to highlight his party’s small-business agenda….Mr. Obama ordered a six-inch ’super sub’ — he declared that at nearly 49 he can no longer eat the 12-inch variety — and sat down at a table with the owner, Dave Thornton, and the owners of three businesses in nearby towns."

Peter Applebome’s Thursday "Our Town" column in the Times made a glancing reference to the fundraisers, calling the president’s sub shop stop "the populist portion of the president’s visit to the region before decidedly less-modest stops in New York."

In contrast, the Washington Post managed to notice the disparity in Thursday’s print edition, "On midterm campaign trail, Obama mixes populist appeal with wooing of big donors."

President Obama’s message to voters this election year is simple and full of populist zeal: Democrats are on the side of the little guy, not the Wall Street brokers, celebrities and chief executives….In town after town, the president is holding events that highlight his party’s work on behalf of the average Joe — but that are carefully scheduled to leave plenty of time for unpublicized fundraisers with people who are anything but.

They certainly weren’t publicized in the New York Times.