On Fox News.

A request, dear reader, to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAJg8AVRgN8

If you're not one to watch seven minutes of Rachel Maddow tackling Glenn Beck on the strife in Wisconsin, a summary:

-- In 2009, WorldNetDaily publishes a column by Joel Richardson: What Obama and the Antichrist have in common.

-- Richardson is now being booked by Fox News to appear as an expert on the Wisconsin protests... and how there's a menacing, ancient-evil connect with the turmoil in Egypt.

-- "Now, now--especially if you do not watch Fox News, just so you're inoculated as to what you are likely to hear the next time a fervent Fox News viewer tells you what's going on in Wisconsin--now it is important to know what it is that Fox News is telling its viewers about how to understand the protests in Wisconsin.  Because what Fox is telling their viewers involves The Anti-Christ."

-- Beck believes the Wisconsin protests to be the progeny of an Islamic end-of-days cabal. [NOTE: Fox News allows Beck to host a self-titled, hour-long program each weekday at 5pm ET.]

-- Beck having Richardson on his show.

-- Beck saying he "about wet his pants" about doing research on the Anti-Christ.

-- A clip of Richardson claiming to be an end-times prophet.

-- "I say this not just to point and shriek, but because what happens on Fox News and in conservative media really influences how American conservatives think, even when it's so unbelievably out there you can't really believe that anyone would believe it. [...]that when even the craziest reaches of right wing media talk about this stuff, conservatives listen to it."

-- Cut to a New Jersey "conservatives" poll from 2009.  Question: Do you think Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ?  Not sure: 17%.  Yes: 18%.

-- Fox News: effectively "Republican State Television".

-- "I am pointing this out because one of your more gullible conservative friends or relations, sometime soon, is going to come to you and tell you that the Anti-Christ is why Hosni Mubarak was a good guy and the Anti-Christ is why firefighters in your town should not have Blue Cross Blue Shield."

To quote 1984 again:

If human equality is to be forever averted--if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently--then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

Next, another request to watch Bill O'Reilly claim The Moon as existence of a supernatural, super-intelligence, super-knowable consciousness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M

For anyone who fancies themselves a sapient-being capable of rational thought and discourse with other like-minded bipedal mammals,  you really must watch this.  But if you haven't that want:

A question from "David, in Beverly Hills, Florida": What do you mean when you refer to the tides when you are asked about the existence of God?  Science explains the tides... the moon's gravity pulls on the oceans.

O'Reilly, in response:

Ok, how did The Moon get there?  How did The Moon get there?  Look, you pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate.  How did the moon get there?  How did The Sun get there?  How did it get there?  Can you explain that to me?  How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it?  Venus doesn't have it.  How come?  Why not?  How did it get here?  How did that little amoeba get here, crawl out there, how did it do it?  Come on.  You have order in this universe, you have an order in the universe: tide comes in, tide goes out.  Ok, yeah, The Moon does it.  Fine, how did The Moon get there?  Who put it there?  Did it just happen? Okay, if we have existence, if we have life on Earth, how come they don't have it on the other planets?  Were we just lucky?

Well, I sure believe in God now!

...

...

Ahem.

1984, again:

Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. 

Flashback to 19 July of last year.  Andrew Breitbart, a self-described Reagan conservative (founder of breitbart.com, Washington Times commentator, guest commentator across cable news, former Drudge Report editor and Arianna Huffington researcher) smears Shirley Sherrod (timeline) and Fox News spearheads the dissemination and propping up of the story.

I believe a theme is emerging.  Not that Fox News has a conservative slant.  If that's news, waking daylight is news.  No, not that Fox News has a conservative slant, but that Fox News, as Maddow stated, is Republican State Television.

Oh, hello,what's this?

“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots.  CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.

“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.

"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.
“For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.

“And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece.  It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous.  Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”

It’s worth noting that Fox News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Fox News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But  it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Fox News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.

Fox News: artificially adding boos to Ron Paul's announced victory of this year's CPAC straw poll, using footage of a Tea Party rally to drum up attendance figures of a Michele Bachmann anti-health care rally, using 2008 campaign footage in attempt to drum up DO NOT FEED THE TROLL drawing large crowds on a book tour, their Washington manager telling reporters and producers to exclusively call the public option "'government-run health insurance' or, when brevity is a concern, 'government option,' whenever possible", presenting Vice President Biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in March of 2009 when said clip actually came from Mr Biden in 2008 at a campaign rally quoting Senator John McCain, calling a fist bump between Barack and Michelle Obama a 'terrorist fist jab', claiming President Obama's budget was four times the size of President George W. Bush's largest, pimping false household costs by five-or-ten-fold for cap-and-trade, claiming an Obama administration 'Czar' withheld information on statutory rape, ignoring a gay-rights rally the size of a Tea Party rally they themselves backed,  hired DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, etc, etc.

You know from where:

This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs--to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.  Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date.  In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.  All history was a palimpsest, scrapped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.  In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

With the ban on corporate political spending lifted, with a cable channel that pushes not a side of an argument but a distorted and twisted fiction, with a cable channel whose owner gave one million dollars to the Republican party because they "had a pro-business agenda", with public union campaign contributions having a 95/5 Democrat/Republican split, does it surprise anyone how vehement the attack is on public unions?  The battle in Wisconsin isn't about balancing budgets but the shredding of a Democratic base.

The battle in Wisconsin is blood in the water for the Republican sharks.