webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Lowry nro

==

oops see rich lowry disambig

NO MERRI

crm on gaza 8 25

---

---

MMA

Right-wing media defend ICE detention center amid protests over horrible living conditions

Written by Sophie Lawton

Research contributions from John Knefel

Published 05/29/26

Right-wing media are defending the living conditions at Delaney Hall, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in New Jersey, following reports of a detainee hunger strike sparking protests outside. In addition to repeating Department of Homeland Security talking points about the conditions, media figures have attacked protesters outside the facility, claiming the demonstrations are “performance art,” among other allegations.

According to NBC, one lawyer who represents multiple detainees said her clients at Delaney Hall “have been given expired food and meals with worms in them” and that some “have been released in recent months because they were not receiving medication or treatment for cancer, diabetes, depression and other conditions.”

The Department of Homeland Security has denied that a hunger strike is taking place at the facility, and both DHS and private prison company the GEO Group, which operates Delaney Hall, have rebuked claims that conditions are unsanitary or “subprime.” In the past year, reports of poor conditions at ICE detention centers have arisen across the country, including from locations such as Fort Bliss Army Base in Texas and the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz” facility in Florida.

Right-wing news pundits and podcasters have contested such reports, repeating DHS talking points claiming that conditions in immigration detention facilities are “clean and nice” and possibly offer “better meals” and “better healthcare” than detainees had previously. Further, several have argued that it shouldn’t matter whether the detainees are on a hunger strike.

Besides defending the facilities, right-wing media figures have also attacked the protesters demonstrating outside Delaney Hall, encouraging escalation from the federal government and accusing protesters of being an “organized agitator group” that aims to stir up votes for the midterm elections and set violent criminals loose on the streets.

Right-wing media dismissed the hunger strike, defended detention center conditions, and attacked demonstrators for protesting

Video

Citation

From the May 28, 2026, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

Video

Citation

From the May 26, 2026, edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle

---

---

an 3 26

Despite being inundated with criticism, far-right podcaster Candace Owens is doubling down on her attacks on Turning Point USA's (TPUSA) Erika Kirk. Owens is suggesting, without evidence, that Erika Kirk was somehow involved in the fatal shooting of her late husband Charlie Kirk, who founded the MAGA youth organization.

The criticism is coming from both the left and the right. Conservative media figures like The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro (who Owens used to work for) and The National Review's Rich Lowry are calling her out, and liberals and progressives are saying that while they vehemently disagree with Erika Kirk's politics, Owens' YouTube video series "Bride of Charlie" (a play on "Bride of Frankenstein") is a mean-spirited smearing of a widow who lost her husband to gun violence.

Salon's Sophia Tesfaye, in an article published on March 4, argues that "Bride of Charlie" not only underscores Owens' willingness to promote unhinged conspiracy theories — it is also an indictment of right-wing media's business model.

"With Kirk's assassination at a Turning Point USA event in Utah last September, the MAGA movement faced a genuine tragedy," Tesfaye explains. "His widow, Erika Kirk, stepped in to lead the organization. But within weeks, before the grief had even begun to settle, Owens began publicly questioning the circumstances of Kirk's killing and spinning conspiracy theories on her podcast…. What started as insinuation soon metastasized into a serialized spectacle: 'Bride of Charlie,' a multi-episode YouTube series targeting Erika Kirk personally…. In the series, which is still ongoing, Owens hints that Kirk's murder was an inside job, suggests foreign agents may have been involved and implies that Erika Kirk has 'ulterior motives' in leading TPUSA."

Tesfaye notes that although "the conservative establishment has, belatedly, tried to fight back against Owens' accusations" against Erika Kirk, they "have largely failed to land a blow" — as the first episode of "Bride of Charlie" received "nearly 5 million views."

"The real reason right-wing media cannot stop Candace Owens is that they built her," Tesfaye emphasizes. "And, more importantly, they built the engine that fuels her: the machinery of conspiratorial media, which is immune to the tools that might once have contained it. For decades, conservative media has thrived on a business model that monetizes outrage and distrust. The more outrageous the claim, the greater the engagement. The more distrust sowed toward institutions — universities, media, elections, public health, the FBI — the more loyal the audience becomes."

Tesfaye continues, "In December, even as Owens was deep into Charlie Kirk assassination trutherism, Erika Kirk was urging TPUSA audiences to be tolerant of disagreeable views. By the time the right decided Owens had gone too far, she had already built a fully independent operation. The movement that once shielded Owens is now discovering that monsters raised on grievance do not recognize fences. The conservative movement no longer has credible gatekeepers."

---

AN 2 26

Far-right conspiracy theorist Candace Owens continues to double down on her attacks on Erika Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA and widow of the MAGA youth group's late founder Charlie Kirk. Owens, who served as TPUSA's communications director from 2017-2019 before working for radio host Dennis Prager's PragerU and Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire (which fired her for comments Shapiro considered antisemitic), is claiming, without evidence, that Erika Kirk was somehow involved in her husband's murder.

Owens has plenty of critics, who range from liberals and progressives to right-wing Never Trump conservatives. Yet within the MAGA movement, she still enjoys a large following — which, according to conservative National Review Editor-In-Chief Rich Lowry, is a big part of the problem.

In a scathing op-ed published on February 27, Lowry laments that promoting ugly and baseless conspiracy theories isn't decreasing the size of her audience.

"Joe McCarthy was famously undone by the rhetorical questions at a 1954 congressional hearing, 'Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?,'" Lowry argues. "If the same queries were directed to Candace Owens at such a forum, she'd sail on unperturbed — since she has no idea what 'decency' means. The conspiratorial podcaster has embarked on an investigative series on Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk. In this context, 'investigative series' means a loosely stitched together collection of sewerish falsehoods and innuendo smearing Erika Kirk. ... And what is more demented than portraying the wife of the victim of a shocking assassination as a black widow?"

The National Review editor-in-chief continues, "Whereas most have seen in Erika Kirk a Christian woman bearing up under an intolerable burden and stunningly forgiving the alleged murderer of her husband, Owens purports to see Clytemnestra, the mythical Greek figure who betrayed her husband, Agamemnon, upon his return from the Trojan War."

Owens is describing her anti-Erika Kirk series as "Bride of Charlie," a play on "The Bride of Frankenstein." And she is calling for Kirk's widow to "be dragged into a police precinct for questioning."

"As a so-called investigator," Lowry argues, "Candace Owens is like Perry Mason if the fictional attorney had been a schizophrenic high on crack…. It is a symptom of our time that such malevolent buffoonery is rewarded with a huge audience. It is impossible to discredit Owens because she is not in the credibility business to begin with. In the attention economy, denunciations are just as useful as praise, especially if a media figure is posing as a brave truth-teller — so brave that, in this case, she's willing to drag through the mud a mother of two who saw her beloved husband murdered less than six months ago. It's not just that decency is not necessary in the Candace Owens business model; it would be an obstacle."

---

MMA

/ Media Matters

---

May 14, 2025, edition of National Review's The McCarthy Report

RICH LOWRY: Crypto. What's the news?

ANDY MCCARTHY: So, well, the news last night, is that an obscure company, that has a Chinese subsidiary. It's a company that, trades on, NASDAQ, and it, it has a Chinese subsidiary. It last year did such booming business that it has had zero revenue.

It only has eight employees. Again, we know this because the company trades on NASDAQ. It turned out that they raised $300,000,000 from an unidentified entity that's set up in The Virgin Islands, which is notorious for, people, because its laws allow for shell companies to be easily set up. The Virgin Islands is notorious for people who want to be anonymous in conducting financial transactions. So we have somebody who we don't know who is giving $300,000,000, bought $300,000,000 of the stock of this nondescript company with the Chinese subsidiary that doesn't apparently have any business, but somehow trades on NASDAQ.

They have gotten $300,000,000 from whoever the source is, and they've announced that they're gonna buy $300,000,000 worth of Trump's meme coin that we talked about last week, the Trump coin. This is the coin that Trump announced, three days before he was being inaugurated that his company or company that he controls, was basically going to market. And the Trump entities are enriched the more that the coin is worth, and they also make money because whether people who buy the meme coin meme coin scheme is basically a pump and dump scheme. You know, people buy a meme coin is not like as I described last week, a meme coin is not like stable coin or other cryptocurrency. It doesn't even pretend to be currency.

It's basically people are buying a memento that's associated with, you know, a person, a joke, an internet influence operation, what have you. But it's a memento of something. Trump's meme coin, the image that they put out when they began to market it three days before he was inaugurated was Trump with his fist in the air going fight, fight, fight, kind of, invoking the memory of the assassination attempt, in Butler. They began selling it. It was, I think that it was selling for 18 cents a token when they first put it out.

At one point, it went up to $75 a token. And there were they marketed, like, a thousand of these tokens. So on paper, Trump was a very rich person and may actually have, have already made over a billion dollars on this based on sales of the coin and also the way they structured it every time a buyer has a transaction in in, this meme coin, the Trump people make money. They make a transaction fee on every transfer of the meme coin. So they've made about $350,000,000 on the, on the transaction fees and their holding of the coins that they have is inflated.

If the, if the price of the coins goes up and every time there's a big purchase of the coins, obviously the value goes up. So now we have this transaction where somebody is basically giving Trump three hundred million dollars. And I think the most alarming thing about the meme coin is, again, we have all these laws against government officials taking foreign money. We have the bribery law in the constitution. We have the Emoluments Clause, but we also have, you know, campaign finance laws that make it illegal for foreigners to give American campaigns or related activities like, inauguration funds, foreigners can't contribute to them.

So something like the meme coin, which Trump sets up as a private business of his and is obviously using the presidency as leverage to increase the value of it. And because crypto, a lot of the transactions can be fairly anonymous transactions, what the people who are investigating this are finding is that the money and it's now it's been billions of dollars, but the money that's pouring into these ventures is from overseas. A lot of it comes from China. A lot of it comes from Singapore.

A lot of it comes from places in the Middle East. A lot of it comes from other places in Asia. So it's a way for foreigners to pay Trump a lot of money. And some of them have been pretty open about the fact that they're not only big buyers of this meme coin. Trump is now, the other the other meme coin thing that's gone on for the last couple of weeks is they were worried that the price of meme coin, the market in meme coin, the Trump meme coin was going to collapse because after it surged at the beginning, it's gone down.

And even though a lot of people made a lot of money, most investors have lost money. The last thing I saw this week said that the losses were probably over $3,000,000,000, but a lot of people who got in early, as is typical of a pump and dump scheme, a lot of people who got in early and then sold when the, when the value surged made a lot of money. And again, the Trump's make a lot of money because whether investors win or lose, they make the transaction fee, but they don't want they don't want the thing to collapse because they're still holding about 800,000 of these coins. They only marketed 200,000, and the value of what they're holding depends on what the market is. So what they did to try to prop up the market was have a contest where the top I think it was 220 purchasers of the Trump meme coin would be invited to a big gala dinner at Trump's Virginia golf club.

LOWRY: Yeah.

MCCARTHY: And one of the big prizes, if you were at the, like, the really high rung of people who were purchases, was you're gonna get a tour of the White House. So, I mean, it couldn't be more blatant that, that they're using.

LOWRY: [INAUDIBLE]

MCCARTHY: Yeah. Right. So, they're trying to prop up the price. And in the meantime, a lot of these people have gone public because now they've had this contest and they were trying to win the contest. Right?

So, you know, the Times has a bunch of these people who they've interviewed. And they said, yeah, I bought, like, you know, a million dollars worth of the mean coin to get into the into the contest because I'm hoping to discuss, I'm hoping to meet president Trump at the gala and talk to him about, you know, conditions in Mexico and the tariffs. And I wanna talk to him about crypto policy. Of course, they're trying to buy influence. I mean, it couldn't be more obvious that that's what they're doing.

But the alarming thing here is you have all these foreign I mean, even if the even if they weren't foreign, it would be very disturbing to have somebody who was president leveraging the power of the presidency to get people to buy stuff from him, which is obviously making him much richer. Trump's net worth, according to Forbes, this week is $5,400,000,000 between, you know, what they did to stand up, this Trump media company, the Trump media and technology group that owns, Truth Social. And what they've done with this cryptocurrency stuff, Trump's net worth has doubled in the last year or so. And that's, you know, that's when, Tish James had him on the ropes and it looked for a second like he was gonna lose everything, right?

Which is probably in part why he's so adamant to strike while the iron is hot. But this is very disturbing. There's a lot of foreign money coming into these, into the family coffers.

LOWRY: Is there any precedent for this sort of action? I would they only be Joe Biden and and his his family business? Or have we ever seen anything like this?

MCCARTHY: I don't I don't think so. I mean, I think as I said in the first column I wrote about the cryptocurrency stuff, I think the analogs here would be something like the Biden family business or the Clinton Foundation.

LOWRY: Right.

MCCARTHY: You know, the Clintons set up this foundation in large part so that foreign people could pay them a lot of money and not have to worry about the campaign finance laws.

LOWRY: Pay a lot of money, and you go to the conferences, and you spend time with former president, future presidents, I believe. .

MCCARTHY: Right. Right. And, it all looks like global good. Right? Global do-gooding.

LOWRY: It's will just be done in office while in office.

MCCARTHY: Yes. Right. That's the difference is when you were paying into the Clinton Foundation, you were trying to buy influence with very influential buy access to very influential people. And there was always a chance that Hillary could become president again. Right?

But they weren't in office. And with Biden, as scummy as that whole thing was, they actually tried to shut it down and mainly did shut it down in 2019 because he was running for president.

LOWRY: Right.

MCCARTHY: And you could tell, by the way, that Biden, you know, implausibly, how many times did he say, I don't know anything about it. That's Hunter's stuff. I don't ask him about it. I don't know anything about it. I know nothing about it.

So even though they were making what what for them was a lot of money, and they were clearly selling Biden's political influence, they at least had enough sense to say, this has nothing to do with the presidency. I'm not cashing in on my power. You know, they were trying to erase the, to the extent that there was a a a trail of clues that that was what they were doing. They were trying to, to wipe that slate clean. With Trump, he's very much right out in the open, and he's leveraging the actual power of the presidency, which is why the money is so astronomical.

I mean, look, the Biden stuff, the the House Committee trace $27,000,000 into the Biden family coffers, that's a rounding error compared to the money that we're talking about here. Yeah. And it's not surprising that that's true because there's nothing like the power of the presidency. You cannot you can obviously understand why if people think they can turn it to their advantage, that would be something, it would be worth it to them to pay a lot of money for.

LOWRY: Get pardoned. Investigations get dropped. You know? You're you're, It's happening. Some obscure question foreign policy question settled in in your favor or your pay master's favor, etcetera.

-----

The real reason corporate media won't cover Trump's attacks on democracy

D. Earl StephensSeptember 02, 2024

We need to talk about the abominable headline below, and how it is we have come to the fatal point where The New York Times and our broken mainstream media seem to need the America-attacking Donald Trump a helluva lot more than the America-attacking Donald Trump seems to need The New York Times and our broken mainstream media.

substackcdn.com

During the past few, rocky years my feelings about the newspaper I grew up reading as a kid — the paper that influenced me more than any other to become a newspaperman — in the New Jersey suburbs have evolved from surprise, to shock, to disappointment, to anger, to rage, to complete revulsion ...

Aside from platforming maniacal, caustic headlines topping spurious content like the one above (which I promise to get to in a minute), this newspaper’s inability to spot the biggest news story of our lifetimes, and treat it with the heft it deserves, is journalistic malpractice, and a very real danger to our country.

The Times isn’t alone in its mishandling and disregard of the continuing attack on our country and its institutions that back it up. In fact, I can’t point to ONE so-called reputable news source in our “mainstream” media that has appropriately sounded the alarms, and given this perpetually breaking news story the treatment it demands.

There is not a single day that toddles by, when I don’t sit at my cluttered desk as the retired newspaperman I ultimately became, and stare at my keyboard wondering just what in the hell is being discussed in the newsrooms of our most foremost “news” operations in this nation.

Why have they abandoned us, and the most important story in the world?

Our country has been under steady attack for nearly four years now. Why aren’t our newsrooms on wartime footing? Bare minimum, why haven’t Democracy Desks been set up in these broken newsrooms staffed with journalists who do nothing but monitor the Republicans’ movements as they ruthlessly defend an attack on America, and go about annihilating truth, justice, and our right to even vote?

What news could possibly override monitoring the dangerous maneuvers of a sociopath, who is still free and on the loose after unleashing his rabid attack dogs to besiege our Capitol, stomp on law enforcement officials, seek out political leaders for harm and hanging, and prevent the certification of our vote, while doing nothing for three hours except root for the attack’s success?

Backed by his morally busted political party, the son of a bitch means to finish us off whether or not he ever gets power again. He is the literal definition of a terrorist and/or an authoritarian strongman — a thug. He bows to murderous fascists like Putin, and openly revels in their success.

There’s not a single thing I have typed here that isn’t completely true. So what in the hell is going on with our addled media, and their disgusting refusal to do their jobs?

Why just the the other day, this pathetic man outdid even himself when he illegally barged into Arlington National Cemetery for a photo op. He once again disgraced our fallen, who he has called “suckers” and “losers” to get his wrinkled, orange mug in front of a camera.

My God. Now let’s pretend what would happen if Joe Biden or Kamala Harris did something like that …

It has been more than 160 years since a threat like this presented itself in the United States of America, and we know how that turned out. Hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, an assassinated president, cities in ruin, and the very real chance that America would not be able to rebuild itself again.

She did, but all these decades later, still walks with a limp from that horrific period in her life.

We are but 69 days from repeating all this, though it could be even worse this time, because if the enemies of our Democracy win this election they will have successfully breached our Capitol, and will be setting up headquarters in our White House.

The repugnant Confederacy, thank God, never made it that far last time.

So I ask again: Just what in the hell is being discussed in all these newsrooms while Trump bangs the drums of hate, follows the roadmap created for him in Project 2025, and backstopped by a radical, bought-off Supreme Court, bolstered by known election-deniers, promises retribution to anybody who dares get in his way?

Since that terrible attack on our Democracy began four years ago, our broken media has given us almost nothing but normalization and capitulation.

How else to explain this headline and the story it trumpeted written by one of the NYT’s leaders in its editorial department, Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy:

substackcdn.com

What matters most? You mean, the safety and well-being of our country and its citizens from those who would attack it?

Of course it didn’t mean that ...

That headline and the one I lead this piece with above topping an offensive, ridiculous slice of gaslighting by the ultra-Conservative Rich Lowry of the National Review, were splashed across the pages of The New York Times on Monday.

And let’s get this out of the way quickly: Yes, I understand that they were produced by the editorial department of this dumpster fire of a news source, but if that makes you feel any better about things, then they have you right where they want you: accepting that running this kind of propagandist bilge is acceptable.

It’s not.

It’s not from any news source that wants us to take them seriously, and displays the credibility that any reputable news organization must possess to serve its readership adequately.

My only plausible guess for the mainstream media’s failure to cover the attack on our country, besides sheer and incomprehensible incompetence, is that they are hedging their bets. Trump has been undeniably good for their bottom lines, which looks to me to be the only damn thing they truly care about.

If Trump goes away, so does the money. And what of the millions of dollars of tax cuts he’s promising to once again give the owners of these pompous rags?

Otherwise, there’s no making sense of any of this.

Regular readers will know that this is not the first time I have written about our media’s catastrophic failure to protect and inform us. And fair warning: Unless things radically change with the way our mainstream media comport themselves in the coming days, it won’t be the last.

I take these threats to our country and our media institutions very seriously, and I have learned many of you do, too. You (we) are owed a damn explanation for the greatest failure by our media in the 248-year history of our country.

We are furious about it, we have a right to be, and we deserve some damn answers PRONTO.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. Follow @EarlofEnough

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/conservative-rich-lowry-stuns-liberals-never-understood-how-funny-rush-limbaugh-was/

==

robt r:

What’s worrying isn’t that Trump is now getting advice about policy from fanatics like John Bolton and Lawrence Kudlow. Trump has never cared about policy.

The real worry is that – with Robert Mueller breathing down his neck, and several special elections suggesting a giant “blue wave” in November – Trump is getting ready to do whatever it takes to maintain his power, even if that requires fanatical policies.

Trump is preparing for an epic war over the future of his presidency. This has required purging naysayers from his Cabinet and White House staff, and replacing them with bomb-throwing advocates like Bolton and Kudlow.

Fox News is preparing for the same war, and has made a parallel purge – removing Trump critics like George Will, Megyn Kelly, andRich Lowry, and installing Trump marketers like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Sebastian Gorka.

Trump and Fox News are also approaching the war with the same story.

Some of it is by now familiar: Liberals have opened America to hostile forces – unauthorized immigrants, Muslims, Chinese traders, criminal gangs, drug dealers, government bureaucrats, coastal elites (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi), North Korea, Iran, and “political correctness” in all its forms.

Trump intends to protect America from these forces.

The new twist to the story– requiring the recent purges and a united front – is that these forces are conspiring with the FBI to oust Trump from the presidency.

We all know Trump watches an inordinate amount of Fox News, beginning in the wee hours with “Fox and Friends,” which provides much of the fodder for his morning tweets.The membrane separating Trump’s brain from Fox News has always been thin, but in coming months it’s likely to disappear entirely.

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/rich-lowry

===

Richard "Starbursts" Lowry is the editor of National Review and a noted aficionado of Alaskan beauty queens. Among his specialties are masculinity, culture and egregiously bad predictions.

Contents [hide]

[edit] History

Lowry is a perfect example of cradle-to-grave wingnut welfare. He attended the University of Virginia where he got his first real taste of conservatism at the right-wing cage liner Virginia Advocate. After college, he found a job as research assistant for Charles Krauthammer. From there, he headed to the National Review and started working his way up the ranks. He even found the time to write a traditional anti-Clinton book - Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years - which was published by traditional anti-Clinton book publisher Regnery Press.

In spite of this history, Lowry contributed to a book on conservative conversion stories. His "conversion" involved going from a nominally pro-gun conservative to a more pro-gun conservative.[1]

[edit] At the National Review

Rich Lowry

[edit] Lowry, the culture warrior

One of Lowry's favorite hobby horses is the rotten American culture. Per Lowry, the permissive, socialist liberal culture was to blame for everything from the abuses at Abu Ghraib[2] to the shooting at Virginia Tech[3] to the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina.[4] ( the argument here is that the enervating effects of welfare made New Orleans less able to recover from Katrina than from previous hurricanes).

[edit] Civil liberties are for suckers

Like many conservatives, Lowry lost all respect for the Constitution and basic human rights after 9/11. While he was not as vociferous as some, he still offered at least tacit support for expanded domestic surveillance,[5] torture[6][7], and even collective punishment[8].

[edit] The Lowry Test

Like Bill Kristol and David Brooks, Lowry has a knack for making erroneous predictions. Among the more unfortunate ones:

[edit] Notable incidents

[edit] Al Franken and Lowry

One of Lowry's obsessions is masculinity and the supposed lack thereof among liberals. In 2000, he appeared on CNN and alleged that Democrats had "feminized" and "sissified" politics. In response, Al Franken called Lowry and challenged him to a fistfight. Franken recounted the incident in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them[13]. As expected, Lowry backed out, then followed up with a column in which he likened Franken to Richard Simmons.[14]

[edit] Sarah Palin

This one speaks for itself:

“”A

very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting

through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill

O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat.

Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the

only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a

little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked

at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing

well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little

starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of

America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something

you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.[15]

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ↑ Hopefully, At Least One of Them Tells About Being Seduced by Bill Buckley, World O' Crap, 02/07/07
  2. ↑ Don’t judge us by those photos, National Review, 05/11/04: "Consider the iconic film of the 1990s, Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. It includes a scene of the rape of a man imprisoned and kept as a sexual slave, which prompted laughs in theaters. The victim, 'The Gimp,' became a figure of fun. Tarantino's latest, the Kill Bill movies, present the same romance of power and violence, arbitrarily and stylishly wielded. Cruelty, Tarantino tells us, can be fun."
  3. ↑ My Virginia Tech Professor, NRO, 04/19/07: "Finally, is it really so hard to imagine a world in which an English professor says, "You aren't going to wear sunglasses in my class." Says, "If you don't participate in the discussion in my seminar, you are going to fail." Says, "If you can't produce work that can be read aloud without frightening everyone else, you are going to fail." Says, "Your work is disgusting trash and not up to my standards." Instead, Cho seemed to get passed along."
  4. ↑ "Bold, Persistent Experimentation", National Review, 09/20/05: "New Orleans was partly a catastrophe of the welfare state, which has subsidized inner cities with countless billions of dollars throughout the past 30 years, with little to show for it except more social breakdown."
  5. ↑ CNN, aired 05/30/02
  6. ↑ Who's Tortured? Reason.com, 12/27/04
  7. ↑ Pro-Pain Pundits, FAIR.org
  8. ↑ Original post and follow-up
  9. ↑ The Lowry Test, Davidweigel.com
  10. ↑ BOLTON NOMINATION WILL PASS THE COMMITTEE 10-8 TODAY, NRO
  11. ↑ Obama, NRO, 06/19/07
  12. ↑ We're Winning! Rising Hegemon, 12/02/05
  13. ↑ Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (hardback), pp. 324-327. The relevant text can be seen here.
  14. ↑ Why I Won't Fight Al Franken, NRO, 08/22/00
  15. ↑ Projecting through the Screen, NRO, 10/03/08

Categories:

==

wiki?

Richard A. "Rich" Lowry (born August 22, 1968)[1] is the editor of National Review, the American conservative magazine of news and opinion. He is also a syndicated columnist, author, and political commentator.

Contents

  [hide] 

Life and career:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Lowry was born on August 22, 1968[1] in Arlington, Virginia, the son of a social worker mother and Edward D. Lowry, a professor of English.[2][3][4] He grew up in Arlington, and now lives in New York City. After graduating from Yorktown High School in Arlington, Lowry attended the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, where he studied English and history.[5] He was editor of the Virginia Advocate, the school's conservative monthly magazine. After graduating, he worked for Charles Krauthammer as a research assistant, and later worked as a reporter for a local newspaper in northern Virginia.[5]

In 1992, Lowry joined William F. Buckley's National Review, after finishing second in the magazine's young writer's contest. In the summer of 1994, he became the articles editor for National Review and moved to Washington DC to cover Congress.[5] In November 1997, Lowry became editor of National Review at the age of 29, taking over from John O'Sullivan who succeeded Buckley in that position ten years earlier.[6] At the time, Buckley said of Lowry, "I am very confident that I've got a very good person."[6]

As a political columnist, Lowry has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, theLos Angeles Times, and a variety of other publications.[5] In addition to his syndicated column with King Features, Lowry is an opinion columnist for Politico. He has also contributed essays to Time magazine. As a political commentator, he regularly appears on the Fox News Channel, KCRW's Left, Right & Center and has guest-hosted on Hannity. He is a frequent guest panelist, along with Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, and Mort Zuckerman, on the PBS series The McLaughlin Group. He is also an occasional panelist on Fox News Watch and NBC's Meet the Press.

Lowry married Vanessa Palo in 2011.[11]Lowry has written two non-fiction books. His New York Times best-selling book, Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years[7] is a polemic about President Bill Clinton, whom he deprecates as "Navel-Gazer-in-Chief".[8] In June 2013, he published the political biography Lincoln Unbound.[9] Lowry has also written fiction. In 2009, Lowry and Keith Korman wrote Banquo's Ghosts, a political thriller. The plot revolves around a nuclear-armed Iran and an inebriated leftist journalist.[10]

Works:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

National Review Online articles by Rich Lowry

Politico articles by Rich Lowry

Townhall articles by Rich Lowry

Real Clear Politics articles by Rich Lowry

Booknotes interview with Rich Lowry

Bloggerheads debate with Rich Lowry and Michael Tomasky

Appearances on C-SPAN

repub to

http://www.newsmax.com/Insiders/RichLowry/id-152/

unfla pix of al:

It's not easy to make one of the world's biggest fossil-fuel companies a sympathetic victim, but a collection of state attorneys general, led by Eric Schneiderman of New York, has managed it.

They have launched a campaign against Exxon Mobil that is a transparent — nay, an explicit — attempt to punish dissent on climate change. The members of the self-described "Green 20" are demonstrating a banana-republic-worthy understanding of the law and their responsibilities. They shouldn't be entrusted with the power of a meter maid, let alone a top position in law enforcement. 

Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon Mobil last year, in what purports to be a fraud investigation. The alleged offense is having less alarmist views on global warming over the years than the green clerisy deems acceptable. How this would constitute fraud is unclear.

Investors would have found Exxon Mobil alluring even if the company had maintained that the planet was in danger of becoming uninhabitable, for no other reason than oil is a miraculously efficient source of energy that we aren't close to replacing.

Consumers would have filled their cars with Exxon Mobil's product regardless, and surely only felt defrauded if the gasoline didn't get them to work or to their kids' soccer practice as advertised.

Usually, officials charged with law enforcement at least try to obscure their political motivations. Not the attorneys general who stood with Schneiderman at a saber-rattling press conference a few weeks ago. Dispensing with any pretense of disinterestedness, they dubbed themselves "AGs United for Clean Power." 

Al Gore appeared at the presser, not as a legal expert, but as a totem of the green left. Schneiderman said that President Barack Obama's climate agenda has been frustrated, so he and his colleagues would work "creatively" and "aggressively" to advance it.

That is certainly his right — if he resigns and becomes an official at the Sierra Club or runs for Congress. Instead, he is using the powers of his office to harass a company with opinions he finds uncongenial.

The attorney general of the Virgin Islands, of all places, has joined in, even though Exxon Mobil has no assets or staff there. He has subpoenaed the company's documents going back roughly 40 years under an anti-racketeering statute and, for good measure, also has subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that once got donations from Exxon.

The conceit of this campaign is that if it weren't for the likes of Exxon Mobil, the climate debate would be settled by now. This is a view that doesn't allow for honest disagreement about a hideously complex subject that, even if you accept the premises of the alarmists, isn't susceptible to a ready solution.

Besides, Exxon Mobil has accepted elements of the climate orthodoxy for years now. It has included statements about the potential risks of warming in official documents going back a decade, and it favors a carbon tax. Even if Exxon Mobil has deliberately tilted toward the side of the climate debate most convenient for it, that's not a crime. 

If having a self-serving opinion were against the law, much of the political debate in this country would shut down.

The Green 20 needn't win a case against Exxon Mobil or any other fossil-fuel company to achieve its ends. Every time that Exxon Mobil has to say that it believes in global warming and no longer funds climate skeptics, it is a moral victory for the attorneys general. 

The mere example of Exxon Mobil being forced to expend resources defending itself is a warning to everyone else. And if a settlement can be extorted out of the company and used to fund the green left, all the better.

All of this is a blatant abuse of power, which is why anyone who values the First Amendment and the rule of law has to side with the massive multinational corporation over attorneys general who are a disgrace to their offices.

Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review and author of the best-seller "Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream — and How We Can Do It Again. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other publications. Read more reports from Rich Lowry — Click Here Now.

More Posts by Rich Lowry

More Newsmax Blogs:

==