Last week, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announced that he would refuse to participate in Tulsa’s “Holiday Parade of Lights” because the city had renamed the parade, replacing “Christmas” with “Holiday.” After taking part in the parade every year for three decades, Inhofe took a public stand against what he called a “shameful attempt to take Christ, the true reason for our celebration, out of the parade’s title.” “Until the parade is again named the Christmas Parade of Lights, I will not participate,” he declared.

This morning, Fox & Friends interviewed the chairman of the parade and Inhofe about the senator’s boycott. “I think not participating because we changed the name is kind of a silly reason,” said Larry Fox, the parade’s chairman. But Inhofe and host Gretchen Carlson saw nothing “silly” about the renaming, seeing it as part of a larger nefarious plot to give “the boot” to Christians:

INHOFE: Gretchen, I rode my horse in that parade for 30 years and I never missed one until they changed the name. When he said that was a silly reason, I don’t think that was a silly reason at all. … But, you know, this is a bigger picture. … You know, I would expect it some other places, but not here in Oklahoma. [...]

CARLSON: So, what you’re saying is, that it’s not like you’re not tolerant of other religions. … What you’re saying is — what a lot of people are saying in our society right now — which is if we’re supposed to be tolerate of all these other religions, which pretty much everyone accepts, why does it always seem like Christianity is the one to take the boot?

INHOFE: They’re the ones to get the hit. … I think there are a lot people of other faiths who wonder also, why do they always pick on the Christians?

Watch it:

It’s worth noting that while Inhofe laments the demise of Christian supremacy in the parade’s name — the event itself will still feature Christmas themes and decorations — his state has gone to great lengths to ward against the non-existent threat of Islamic supremacy, enacting a constitutional amendment to ban Sharia law. So perhaps it’s not surprising that he wouldn’t expect this outburst of political correctness “here in Oklahoma.”

And while Carlson went out of her way to speak for Inhofe and clarify “that it’s not like you’re not tolerant of other religions,” the senator has been less than tolerant in the past.

Moments after President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, the right wing mobilized against her, claiming that she “banned” military recruiters during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School.

Yesterday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) became the first senator to oppose Kagan, citing her “poor judgment” when she “banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus.” Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said last night that Kagan “block[ed] these wonderful men and women from being on the campus,” while House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in statement that her decision to “ban” recruiters was “troubling.”

The right-wing media has dutifully latched onto this talking point. Watch a compilation:

In reality, Kagan never booted, banned, or barred recruiters from Harvard Law School. As White House adviser Valerie Jarrett noted on MSNBC this morning, “One of the years she was dean, actually [military] enrollment went up on campus.” Here are the key facts:

1) Kagan briefly prevented the military from using the school’s Office of Career Services (OCS), but never barred recruiters from campus, allowing them to operate through the school’s Veterans Association during her entire tenure.

2) Harvard Law School has a long-standing policy designed to prohibit employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from recruiting through the OCS, but made an exception for the military, which Kagan observed.

3) Seeking to fully enforce Harvard’s policy, Kagan supported an effort to overturn the Solomon Amendment, which would have stripped Harvard of $400 million in federal grant money had she barred recruiters from using the OCS.

4) In 2004, a federal appeals court ruled against the Pentagon on the Solomon Amendment, and Kagan briefly prohibited the military from using the OCS.

5) In 2006, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court, and Kagan reinstated the military’s right to use the OCS.

Even ultra-conservative Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano understood this, explaining that Kagan was “following the law as it then existed.”

As former Harvard Law School dean Robert Clark explained in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Outside observers may disagree with the moral and policy judgments made by those at Harvard Law School. But it would be very wrong to portray Elena Kagan as hostile to the U.S. military. Quite the opposite is true.” Despite expressing her objections to the military’s discrimination against gays, Kagan never “banned” military recruiters from the law school campus.

Today, Tucker Carlson launched his new much-hyped conservative website, The Daily Caller. One of the most prominent features is a column by Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash. The “Ask Matt Labash” column is supposed to be a funny “conversation.” Highlights from this week include jokes about how getting a traffic ticket is like being raped and Rachel Maddow is “the sexiest man alive”:

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I’ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I’d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil’ Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow. [...]

Pick three government programs you would eliminate. Why?
–AJ

2. Legalized rape. What’s that you say? Rape isn’t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. Forget for a second that in one-fourth of all automated ticket cases, the ticketed car owner wasn’t the one actually driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction (what other crime-fighting technology do we consider reliable that nabs the wrong person 25 percent of the time?) Just as heinous is that every year, more and more municipal governments pretend that they plant these all-seeing menaces in the interest of “safety.” Yet every year, their revenues tend to increase from the very same technology. Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you’re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.