Fox News deludes itself about its stance on poverty following some apt commentary from President Obama about the negative depiction of poor people in the media.
After President Obama made some of the most interesting comments of his career at a Georgetown University panel on poverty Tuesday, I worried that the only thing liberals would take from the event was that Obama accused Fox News of calling poor Americans “sponges” and “leeches.”
But now I have another theory. Is it possible that Obama, playing a game of eleventy-dimensional chess, attacked Fox News because he knew they’d overreact — only to set up the most damning Daily Show supercut ever?
Because that is what the president — and America — got.
Fox News responded to being called out by President Obama by suggesting that poverty would be solved if African-Americans would stop being lazy and go get jobs.
Yesterday, while participating in a roundtable about poverty, President Obama called out Fox News for spreading lies about the poor.
President Obama said, “I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone — or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative — right? — that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”
Fox News responded by doubling down on racism and falsehoods about poverty.
Fox News’s Stuart Varney blamed President Obama’s policies for poverty. Varney said, “I think the president is spinning the failure of his own policies, and I think he is blaming us, and I think we are an honest messenger.Look at food stamps for a second. We’ve been asking why is that after six years of so-called recovery there’s still twelve million more people on food stamps today than when the president took office. Surely, that’s the failure of the president’s policies. What about Obama phones? Why is it that we’re giving away thirteen million phones after six years of recovery. Why are we doing that?”
Varney then trotted out the favored Republican attack of accusing President Obama of creating a culture of dependency.
The “Obama phones” program was not created by President Obama. “Obama phones” came from the administration of George W. Bush, via a private company created with grants during the Clinton presidency. The statutory authority for the program dates back to FDR and Woodrow Wilson. In other words, there is no such thing as an Obama phone.
Steve Doocy added, “The speech yesterday was all about poverty. If you don’t want to be poor, usually, you wind up with a job. , that is the answer, but if you look at the black unemployment rate, it’s staggering.”
In 2014, the United States government estimated that 10.6 million workers were poor. These people have jobs, most of the time more than one, yet they are still poor. The simplistic conservative answer to poverty is based on the assumptions that poor people are lazy, and that jobs pay enough to lift workers out of poverty. Doocy took it a step beyond by trying to link the African-American unemployment rate to a willingness to get a job.
Fox News was doing all of the spinning. They were trying to cover up the fact that their audience is more likely to receive government benefits than African-Americans. The propaganda spewed by Doocy and Varney was not only racist and classist. It was also 100% factually incorrect.
People aren’t poor because they are lazy, but blaming others while slumming in the worst stereotypes is the Fox News way.
A Fox News “terrorism expert” was forced to issue an apology on Sunday after he wrongly stated on-air that one British city was “totally Muslim” while discussing extremism in Europe following the recent attacks in Paris.
“In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” Steven Emerson said during a Sunday appearance on “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”
“And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire,” he continued.
In fact, Birmingham has a Muslim population of 21.8%, according to the UK’s Office for National Statistics.
Emerson, whose website calls him “one of the leading authorities on Islamic extremist networks,”issued an extensive apology after his remarks set off a wave of a ridicule on social media.
“I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error,” he told the UK edition of the Huffington Post on Sunday.
Emerson called it an “inexcusable error” and said he would make a correction immediately for “the beautiful city of Birmingham,” according to the site.
“PS. I intend to make a donation to Birmingham Children’s Hospital,” he added.
The Fox contributor’s original comments sparked a hashtag mocking the channel’s coverage of Islam, #FoxNewsFacts.
In 2013, 92% of Brits attending weddings hired their outfits from a jihadist group known as Mosque Bros #foxnewsfacts— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) January 11, 2015
Fox News is secretly run by jihadists aiming to undermine Westerners’ belief in media freedom #FoxNewsFacts— Michael Deacon (@MichaelPDeacon) January 11, 2015
Don’t worry, Denver fans. Like America in war, Peyton Manning is undefeated in the postseason. #foxnewsfacts— Jeb Lund (@Mobute) January 12, 2015
Incidentally, the program’s host, Jeanine Pirro, had her own moment of ignorance during the show when she said Pakistan was the most important “Arab” nation in the West’s crackdown on global terrorism. (Pakistan is a South Asian country.)
“It is time for this to be over and stop sending American dollars to any Arab country that does not support this mission, Pakistan at the top of the list,” she said.
GOP pundit who said Dems invented impeachment threat now says Obama’s about to commit “impeachable offense.” Huh?
And so it begins, again. “I believe this is an impeachable offense,” Charles Krauthammer told Fox host Megyn Kelly Thursday night, discussing President Obama’s planned executive action on illegal immigration. “It is very clear that what he’s doing now […] is a flagrant assault on the Constitution, on the separation of powers.”
Now he’s telling Kelly, one of Fox’s most reliable impeachment trolls, that Obama is about to commit “an impeachable offense.”
It was Kelly, back in January, who asked then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell if he would consider impeaching the president. (McConnell ducked the question.) Late in the summer, though, top Republicans put out the word that impeachment was an overreach likely to rev up the Democratic base and cost the party its coming midterm landslide, so she settled down.
But Kelly brought the charge back election eve, suggesting that any Obama executive action deferring deportation might be designed to “offend” Republicans into impeaching him. Those poor impetuous creatures are slaves to emotion, the Fox host seemed to suggest, and can’t be blamed if they’re baited into political overreach by our amoral, conniving president.
In fact, Kelly’s doing the baiting herself. On Wednesday she asked Sen. Jeff Sessions if he thought Obama’s coming immigration move was an “impeachable offense.” He said he thought Republicans had enough “tools” to push back – and as new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, he suggested he’d look at defunding the Justice Department or other agencies if Obama moved.
Interestingly, on Thursday night, in the same segment where he branded executive action “an impeachable offense,” Krauthammer warned Republicans not to use the budget to shut down the government — just one day after Sessions told Kelly he’d consider using his new budgetary powers to stop such a move. So he’s trying to restrain newly empowered Republicans at the same time he’s riling them up?
To be fair, back when he blamed Democrats for the impeachment talk, Krauthammer also told Bret Baier that any executive action on immigration would indeed be “an impeachable offense” – but one that he would be “100 percent against.” Krauthammer may still oppose impeachment, too, as political overreach that will damage his party.
And yet Thursday night he threw kindling on a fire that had seemed to burn itself out. Will he get away again with claiming this was all the Democrats’ idea? Probably. Fox will play both sides of the fence as long as it entertains its Obama-hating audience. Krauthammer will try to steer the impeachment clown car, but he may find it takes him over a cliff.
The GOP’s persistent and oftentimes conflicting criticism of the administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis within the United States jumped the shark on Wednesday, after a prominent Republican congressman questioned why President Obama hasn’t yet named a medical doctor to manage the situation whom the party has vociferously opposed.
After the first case of Ebola was diagnosed in Dallas, Texas in September, Republicans abandoned their longstanding opposition to government czars and called on the administration to appoint an “Ebola czar” to coordinate and message the government’s response to the deadly virus.
Obama resisted such calls for weeks, insisting, primarily through White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, that “clear lines of authority” already exist within the government’s effort. But the administration ultimately named Ron Klain, a former chief-of-staff to Vice President Joe Biden, to act as the point person on the issue.
Republicans immediately pounced. They accused Obama of nominating a “hack,” claimed that Klain had no “medical experience,” and would only “add to the bureaucratic inefficiencies that have plagued Ebola response efforts thus far.”
Others still insisted that the president shouldn’t have appointed a czar at all, because he simply needed to lead. “This is a public health crisis, and the answer isn’t another White House political operative. The answer is a commander in chief who stands up and leads, banning flights from Ebola-afflicted nations and acting decisively to secure our southern border,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced.
On Wednesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) appeared on Fox News to complain that Klain had not yet agreed to testify before Congress, firing another criticism at the White House. “Why not have the surgeon general head this up?” Chaffetz said, adding, “at least you have someone who has a medical background who has been confirmed by the United States Senate, that’s where we should be actually I think going.”
But Obama can’t appoint the Surgeon General to lead the Ebola response because his nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is being opposed by the National Rifle Association and Republicans senators (as well as a few Democrats) for supporting the expansion of background checks during gun purchases. In February, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) officiallyplaced a hold on the nomination.
Chaffetz seemed unaware of this wrinkle during his Fox interview, and his office would not return repeated requests for comment. Confusing matters even further, a FoxNews.com article summarizing the Chaffetz interview appears to have changed his wording to correct the error. It reports that the Congressman called on Obama to nominate the “acting-United States surgeon general,” a claim he never made. In fact, that individual, Boris D. Lushniak, serves in a place-holder position that does not receive Senate confirmation. Lushniak, who is filling in because Murthy has been blocked, has not taken an active role in the Ebola response.
Still, the mistake — and the political back-and-forth over Obama’s response — underlines the GOP strategy of criticizing every aspect of Obama’s response in an effort to capitalize on the public health story ahead of the midterm elections.
If you had any doubt that we live in a rape culture, the hosts of the Fox show Outnumbered have cleared that up for you. The two hosts, Andrew Tantaros and Kirsten Powers agreed with a wildly offensive column written by now former Forbes columnist Bill Frezza entitled Drunk Female Guests are the Gravest Threat to Fraternities. The column, which came complete with a photo of a drunken, nearly unconscious woman lying on the floor drinking wine, has now been removed and has caused Forbes to terminate its relationship with Frezza. In the column, Frezza said:
[W]e have very little control over women who walk in the door carrying enough pre-gaming booze in their bellies to render them unconscious before the night is through. Based on new standards being promulgated on campus, all consent is null and void the minute a woman becomes intoxicated — even if she is your fiancée. In our age of sexual equality, why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks is a question I leave to the feminists.
Now, apparently Mr. Frezza is one of those men who has an issue with laws surrounding consent and the circumstances under which one can consent to sexual activity. This is no surprise, as many uninformed (or just plain piggish) men do. What is shocking is that two female hosts sat on national television and agreed with him, saying that drunk women should take “personal responsibility” to make sure they don’t get raped. That sounds like victim blaming to me. Tantaros even expressed concern for the fraternity system, saying that it is a “legitimate fear” that drunken victims of sexual assault could lead to the breakdown of America’s college frat system. So, in other words, she is more worried about frat boys than rape victims. Great priorities there, lady. Tantaros argued:
I don’t know why this writer is taking so much heat because this is actually a problem that goes on. These girls show up at these fraternity houses. The guys, what are they supposed to do? Lock them out? ‘Hey, how are you?’ They have a couple more beers, the girl passes out… so it is a legitimate fear.
What are they supposed to do? Um, how about not rape a clearly intoxicated woman? How hard can it be? If someone is clearly drunk, don’t attempt to have sex with her. It really is that simple.
Another co-host on the show, Kennedy Montgomery, took a more reasonable approach, saying that not letting drunk women into frat houses is “exactly” what should happen in these situations. Tantaros, however, continued to blame the women:
They walk up to guys’ rooms, they get lost in the fraternity house. Maybe they get drunk as the night goes on playing beer pong.
Well, while these things may happen, Ms. Tantaros, where in there is an invitation to be sexually assaulted? Nowhere, and to insinuate that there is…well, that is supporting rape culture.
Yet another co-host, Sandra Smith, also took a more reasonable approach, saying that the problem of these drunken frat house rapes could be “the fault of the fraternities that have… no policies to handle this.” She went on to say:
Don’t let them in the door in the first place. Call somebody, get some help, don’t let them in the door.
Now, having been to a large university where this sort of thing happened quite often myself, I can say that not letting drunk people into a frat house on party night just isn’t going to happen. It is not a practical suggestion. However, at least Montgomery and Smith aren’t blaming the women for their own assaults here.
While Tantaros eventually relented and said that “girls getting too drunk and men taking advantage of them” is a problem, she still went on to blame the women, saying:
However, where’s the personal responsibility for both sides?
While I can agree that getting drunk in a frat house with a bunch of drunken frat boys is not the smartest thing to do, we have to remember something. We’re not talking about experienced adult women here. We’re talking about girls away from home for the first time who likely have very little experience with this sort of thing. They are thinking about having fun and making friends at college. They are not thinking that they are going to go to a party and get raped, and nor should they have to. That’s the issue here. Nobody should have to worry about being raped on a college campus in a fraternity.
Kirsten Powers went on to agree with Tantaros:
It makes the drunk girl completely clean no matter what happens — and again, we have to say it because some cuckoo person is going to start blogging how we are supporting women getting raped, which we do not support. And she is not guilty or any of those things, but the point is that the drunk woman is — she’s just not held accountable for anything. The drunk guy, however, is supposed to make all these amazingly perfect decisions, and not make any mistakes.
Ah, but Ms. Powers, what you don’t understand is that when you try to hold a rape victim accountable for her own assault, you are supporting rape as well as rape culture, and that is absolutely shameful coming from a woman. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of rape culture.
Talking to people who religiously watch Fox News is better than space travel. You get to see what life is like on another planet without the risk of explosive decompression. But if you’re a Fox News devotee and insist that the rest of the world is crazy, this list is for you. Please, get help.
You might be watching too much Fox News if:
1. You are OUTRAGED at how Obama has shredded the Constitution but can’t name any rights you’ve lost since January 20, 2009.
2. You think record breaking cold weather in the middle of winter disproves “Global Warming.”
3. You think record breaking cold weather in the middle of winter disproves “Global Warming” but record breaking heat waves in the summer are just a fluke.
4. You hate Obama for the almost 1700 American lives lost in Afghanistan under his watch but have no idea how many died in Iraq before he took office (Hint: more than 4000).
5. You call Afghanistan “Obama’s War” but ignore the entire first eight years of it.
6. You think there’s no way Chris Christie knew about the scandal unfolding in his own office but Obama clearly knew what a small IRS office in Cincinnati was up to.
8. You denounce Bill Clinton as an adulterer but give a pass to David Vitter and Mark Sanford because they apologized.
9. You are both convinced Obama is a secret Muslim and still go into a frenzy when someone mention Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
10. You really do think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist that drinks beer, eats pork, attended church for years (ARRRGH! Rev. Jeremiah Wright!), had his daughters baptized, had bin Laden killed and has had more terrorist leaders assassinated than every president before him combined.
11. You think bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 because he ordered the attack but Obama gets no credit for bin Laden’s death because he only ordered the attack.
14. You swear that Obama has actually reduced your right to own guns but you can’t explain how.
15. You have ever used the phrase: Obama’s Katrina to describe something that was not the bungled response to a major natural disaster.
16. You’re positive Obama isn’t a true Christian but then got mad he had too many Christmas trees (no, seriously, that was a thing).
17. You think Muslims are terrorists and religious fanatics but think protecting gay kids from bullies is an attack on your religious beliefs.
18. You constantly complain the liberal media takes things out of context but you’re deeply offended that Obama said “You didn’t build that.”
19. You think that ACORN stole the 2008 election. Maybe the 2012 one as well.
20. You think “voter fraud” is an actual problem but can’t explain how cutting early voting stops it.
21. In 2009, cutting the $1.4 trillion deficit in half was the most important thing in the world but in 2014, you could care less about how much the deficit was cut (Hint: in half).
22. You hate Obama for not having served a day in the military but voted for Mitt Romney.
23. You think Obama is the laziest president ever for taking so many vacation days but “forget” that it’s less than a third of his predecessor.
23a. Never mind how many days he took, the president shouldn’t take vacations during a time of crisis!
23b. Never mind that Bush took vacations during two wars and a recession! Obama is spending tax payer money to loaf about!
23c. I said WHO CARES that Bush took more than three times as much vacation time? It only counts when the black guy takes a vacation!
24. You think Obama embarrassed America by bowing to other heads of state but forgot about this:
25. You think Obama is terrible for the economy while the stock market continues to hit all time highs.
26. You think the stock market hitting all times highs doesn’t mean the economy is improving but you still believe in Trickle Down Economics.
27. You claim you don’t believe in Trickle Down Economics but insist that increasing taxes on the rich will hurt the economy.
28. You’re outraged OUTRAGED at Obama for not unilaterally launching a full scale war on Iran but call him a warmonger for joining an international coalition to stop a massacre in Libya.
29. You think Obama is “dumb.”
30. You really think a Harvard graduate is “dumb.”
31. You really seriously think a Harvard graduate and a former president of the Harvard Law Review is “dumb.”
32. You think Obama hates white people which would include his white mother and the white grandparents that raised him to be President of the United States.
33. You think Obama is a criminal mastermind that has broken dozens of laws involving thousands of government workers but no one can actually prove anything.
34. You think Obama is an absolute idiot who has broken dozens of laws involving thousands of government workers but no one can actually prove anything.
35. You think Climate Change is a vast liberal conspiracy to destroy Capitalism.
36. You claim evolution is a liberal hoax but still take your kids of their yearly flu shot.
37. You claim science is just a religion but do not think twice about boarding an airplane.
38. You think the private sector can completely replace government investments but you’re OUTRAGED Obama ended the Space Shuttle program.
39. You think using a teleprompter means you are stupid. But only if you happen to be the president. It’s OK for everyone else.
40. You think being asked to drink an extra glass of water a day is tyranny.
41. You think being asked to do more community service is tyranny.
42. You think being asked to help the poor get health insurance is tyranny.
43. You think being asked to let women choose to use birth control is tyranny.
44. You think being asked to respect other religions is tyranny.
45. You think being asked to leave homosexuals alone is tyranny.
46. You think being publicly shamed for your racism is tyranny.
47. You think not allowing criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns is tyranny.
48. You think allowing everyone to vote is tyranny.
49. You think Obama exercising his constitutional authorities is tyranny.
50. You grew up in America and think you actually understand what real tyranny is.
Fox News resident psychiatrist and Medical A-Team member Dr. Keith Ablow used an active shooting situation at an Oregon high school to pre-emptively attack “anti-gun nuts” for wanting to talk about gun saftey laws.
“So often we see people are making these choices, some of it is premeditated,” Guilfoyle explained. “There are thoughts that they’ve recorded in a diary, online, in YouTube videos. Perhaps they’ve been seeking the help from a mental help professional — like yourself — troubled individuals, maybe problems at home. We have to try and unravel it to find out how it happened.”
“I think Americans may finally be getting the idea that the first thing they should think about is mental health gone awry in this system we have that’s so fractured that let’s people slip through the cracks,” Ablow opined.
“But the anti-gun nuts, they will be out in force, saying it’s all the guns,” he continued. “I predict that we’ll find again that yet another person who used a gun was compromised by one or more psychological or psychiatric illnesses that could have been detected.”
Ablow said that he never questioned why shootings happened because he worked as a psychiatrist.
He added: “And I see and get these calls from ERs where they say, ‘We want to send this person home, he threatened his mother and his family last night. But now he’s promising he’s fine. And we’ve got to get him out of here because the insurance company is on our back.’ That’s our system. That’s why this is happening.”
Watch the video below from Fox News’ Out Numbered, broadcast June 10, 2104.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Sunday argued that a Walmart truck driver who allegedly critically injured comedian Tracy Morgan in a car accident should not face jail time because falling asleep behind the wheel was not always reckless.
CNN reported on Sunday that 35-year-old truck driver Kevin Roper had been charged with one count of death by auto and four counts of assault by auto after his tractor trailer crashed into a limo bus, causing the death of one person.
Morgan remained in the hospital in critical condition on Sunday. Two others were also injured.
According to WCAU, early reports indicated that the driver had fallen asleep, but New Jersey State Police said that they had no evidence to support that claim.
Attorney David Schwartz told Fox News on Sunday that the driver could be sentenced to jail if he was convicted of reckless driving for falling asleep behind the wheel.
“Absolutely, 5 to 10 years in jail for death by auto, which is an act of recklessness,” Schwartz explained. “So, if he did fall asleep at the wheel, that’s one of the ways that you could commit reckless driving in New Jersey. And certainly the fact that a death occurred, 5 to 10 years in jail.”
“I’m not trying to take anything away from the tragedy of this,” Carlson replied. “But 10 years in jail for falling asleep? It strikes me as very different from taking drugs, drinking. Has that ever happened? Has anybody ever actually gone to jail for falling asleep?”
“For falling asleep and causing a death?” Schwartz asked. “Absolutely.”
“But, I mean sometimes people — and I’m not defending anyone here,” Carlson continued. “I’m really struck by the idea that someone who falls asleep — which is something that everybody does every day, not necessarily considered an act of recklessness — does it unintentionally, nods off is a criminal.”
“Tucker, if you’re driving a 16-wheel truck, a truck for Walmart, and you’re on the roads for the state of New Jersey, and you’re drowsy and you fall asleep, it’s certainly an act of recklessness,” the attorney insisted. “Not an intentional murder, but it’s an act of recklessness. And that’s where this reckless homicide comes in.”
“I can only imagine the guilt that he’s already feeling,” Fox News co-host Anna Kooiman observed.
“They always survive by the way, the people who cause accidents,” Carlson agreed.
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly had conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza on her show for his first interview after he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance law. Calling it a sympathetic interview would be an understatement, because Kelly used nearly the entire time to suggest that President Obama is the real person to blame.
“[T]he Obama administration gets to call one of its top critics a convicted felon,” Kelly began the segment. “Is this what they wanted all along?” In January, D’Souza was indicted for illegal donations to a Republican’s campaign, where he used fake donors to exceed donation limits.
“Your defense in this case was not I didn’t do it,” Kelly said. “It was, I didn’t do it with intent, I didn’t do it with the right requisite of mind, and it’s selective prosecution of the government who doesn’t go after anybody for this kind of crime except coincidentally one of the president’s biggest critics.”
Watch part of the interview:
An array of Fox News hosts have come to the conservative activist’s defense in the past, including Sean Hannity calling him a “victim,” The Five panning the charges as liberals “redescovering their inner Stalin,” and Neil Cavuto calling it “conservatives under attack.” But that was before D’Souza pleaded guilty himself to the charges in federal court, admitting he “knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids.” Kelly’s interview only made one passing mention of the fact that D’Souza had actually knowingly broke the law. Kelly asked him, “why’d you do it.”