Newt Gingrich is accusing President Obama of cowardice for delaying planned executive action on immigration reform, the same proposed executive action Gingrich previously deemed "unconstitutional" and indicative of a "Venezuelan-style-anything-I-want-is-legal-presidency."
On September 6, the White House confirmed that President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration reform until after the 2014 midterm elections. First discussed this summer, the executive order will reportedly provide temporary relief for millions of law-abiding undocumented immigrants.
Crossfire host Newt Gingrich blasted Obama's decision to delay on CNN's State of the Union the next day. According to Gingrich, the president is "cowardly" for delaying the executive action, compared to his previously "decisive" rhetoric on an immigration order (emphasis added):
GINGRICH: First of all, I think he was pretty honest today in saying, in an interview, that the flood of children coming in this summer changed all the equations and all the emotions. It suddenly became much harder to do something. And in the red states where he has Democrats who are in trouble in the Senate, virtually all of them were saying, 'please, don't do this.' But I think there's a bigger narrative here.
This is one more example of Obama being incapable of figuring out how to do whatever he promises he's going to do. And you go to Ukraine, you go to Iraq, you go to Estonia this week, you go to all sorts of things and you get the Maureen Dowd kind of columns, that are so scathing that it's a little bit hard to believe she'd write it about a Democrat. This is just going to pile on more because his language in the summer was so decisive, and his behavior now is so cowardly, that the gap between those two is just astonishing.
Yet Gingrich previously charged that this same executive action -- which Obama is now "cowardly" for not taking -- amounted to an "unconstitutional executive order."
On the August 3 edition of State of the Union, Gingrich claimed that "the president, I suspect, is preparing an unconstitutional executive order ... that legalizes five million people." When another panelist accused him of "overstating, again, the extent to which the president is operating outside the boundaries of the constitution," Gingrich replied, "You're kidding."
Gingrich has repeatedly urged Republicans to make Obama's pending executive action on immigration a top campaign issue, portraying it as a "fiat" and "Venezuelan-style" overreach of executive power. On Meet The Press on August 10, he advised:
GINGRICH: If [Obama] comes in around Labor Day with some grand scheme by executive order, the right thing for the Republicans to do is pass a bill saying it's wrong in the House, taunt the Senate Democrats who are up for reelection to get the bill through the Senate, and say to American people you want to stick with the Venezuelan-style-anything-I-want-is-legal-presidency, or do you want go back to the constitution, these are your two parties in November, and then in January the Republican Senate and Republican House just cuts off the money.
And appearing on The Laura Ingraham Show in May, Gingrich argued that Republicans' message in the 2014 election should be, "the President of the United states should allow millions and millions of people -- as many as he wants -- to come into the United States and to be legal residents by fiat of his pen, vote Democrat."
While Gingrich turns from attacking Obama as ruling "by fiat" to "cowardly" for delaying action, experts have confirmed the president has broad authority to issue such executive orders on immigration.
Fox News' morning show Fox & Friends celebrated Back to School week by pushing for armed teachers, rehashing tired myths about healthy school lunches, using slurs for immigrant children, and hosting discredited Fox personality John Stossel without disclosing his problematic history on the issue of education.
On its September 2 broadcast, Fox & Friends hyped the Argyle Independent School District (ISD) in Texas, which has recently armed some of its teachers, hosting a parent with two children enrolled in that school district who supports the program. The segment, which echoed similar Fox & Friends segments on August 27 and August 30, neglected to mention, however, that experts and educators agree that arming teachers is a dangerous practice, a habit the network shares with National Rifle Association.
In keeping with Fox's long-standing tradition of attacking first lady Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch program, co-host Heather Childers reported on Fox & Friends' September 4 broadcast that two New York school districts are pulling out of the program because kids say "the portion sizes are too small and it doesn't taste good."
CHILDERS: Two more schools finding the first lady's healthy lunch program hard to swallow. Two districts in New York are now ditching the menu that Michelle Obama revamped in 2010. The reason? It has increased the cost of the lunches and the number of students buying has drastically dropped. So why are less kids chowing down? They say that the portion sizes are too small and it doesn't taste good.
On September 2, Fox & Friends also hosted a student who is "taking a stand" against these school lunches, with co-host Steve Doocy claiming that students should be able to decide on their own lunches because "they're the customer."
During a "News by the Numbers" segment on September 3, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that educating "illegal immigrant children" would cost $761 million and noted that there are "1,000 in my district alone." Unsurprisingly, Kilmeade neglected to point out that undocumented school-aged children in in the United States have a legal right to access public education on equal terms.
On September 4, Fox & Friends turned to Fox Business Network host John Stossel to attack the Common Core State Standards (a practice the network has regularly engaged in) and to push for-profit elementary schools. This discussion, however, made no mention of Stossel's questionable involvement with teaching materials funded by two foundations described as "the dark money ATM of the right."
Curiously missing from Fox & Friends this week was groundbreaking news out of New York City, where the show broadcasts. September 4 marked the first day back to school for New York City students, as well as the first day of expanded pre-kindergarten "for more than 50,000 of the city's very smallest children." CBS New York reported, "City officials said 51,500 full-day pre-K students were enrolled as of Monday, up from 20,000 last year. They said the number will be up to 53,000 by the end of the month."
A new GOP push to dramatically cut federal spending for summer school lunch programs comes after years of right-wing media misinformation about and attacks against funding for school lunch programs.
On May 19, House Republicans proposed an agriculture budget that would cut the summer lunch program for low-income schoolchildren in urban areas and would require the Agriculture Department to "establish a waiver process for local school districts who have found it too costly to comply with tougher nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs," according to Politico (emphasis added):
In the case of nutrition programs, the House bill seeks to open the door for starchy, white potatoes to be added to the list of qualified vegetables under the WIC supplemental feeding program for pregnant women and their young children. The Agriculture Department would also be required to establish a waiver process for local school districts which have found it too costly to comply with tougher nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs.
And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households -- both urban and rural -- during those months when school meals are not available.
These proposed cuts echo years of right-wing media attacking the need for summer lunch programs, and school lunch programs in general. As far back as 2010, radio host Rush Limbaugh challenged the Summer Food Service programs, suggesting hungry children from low-income families can "dumpster dive" for food (emphasis added):
LIMBAUGH: I think, you know what we're going to do here, we're going to start a feature on this program: "Where to find food." For young demographics, where to find food. Now that school is out, where to find food. We can have a daily feature on this. And this will take us all the way through the summer. Where to find food. And, of course, the first will be: "Try your house." It's a thing called the refrigerator. You probably already know about it. Try looking there. There are also things in what's called the kitchen of your house called cupboards. And in those cupboards, most likely you're going to find Ding-Dongs, Twinkies, Lays ridgy potato chips, all kinds of dip and maybe a can of corn that you don't want, but it will be there. If that doesn't work, try a Happy Meal at McDonald's. You know where McDonald's is. There's the Dollar Menu at McDonald's and if they don't have Chicken McNuggets, dial 911 and ask for Obama.
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
Fox News has also voiced opposition to the summer lunch program and attempted to gin up controversy about the program by baselessly speculating that it was a "come one, come all" invitation for taxpayer-funded meals that ineligible children would exploit. Last year, Fox's Stuart Varney criticized summer lunch programs, ignoring the fact that such programs play an instrumental role in reducing child hunger.
The right-wing media's campaign against school lunches extends beyond summer. Fox and others have previously asked if children should work for school meals and claimed free school meal programs hurt low-income kids, yet ignored their usual lunch stance when it involved students who usually pay for their lunch.
Food insecurity affects millions of children -- 10 percent of households by USDA data-- and reports hold that hunger is on the rise in many U.S. cities. Studies show that child hunger impairs their academic achievement, facts that right-wing media overlook in coverage that provides public cover for harsh GOP cuts.
Fox News has been deriding military investments in alternative fuels as a "wasteful" priority. Yet a new report from the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board cites the need for low carbon fuels and other actions to mitigate manmade climate change as imperative to America's national security.
The network was outraged this week over the Defense Department's investment in biofuels for warships and fighter jets, following a Government Accountability Office report that noted the cost of the alternative jet fuel made from algae.
On the May 10 edition of Cashin' In, host Eric Bolling likened federal investment in low carbon jet fuel to "taxpayer money waste," saying "this is what happens when you force ... government into an industry they have no business being in, i.e. green energy." Bolling cherry-picked the most expensive fuel tested -- made from algae -- as the subject of his ire, as did Fox hosts Bret Baier and Neil Cavuto on May 8, decrying "green" programs like the federal investment as a waste of money.
And on the May 9 broadcast of Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy wondered, "Why is the Department of Defense splurging on things like green fuel," featuring Sean Parnell, a retired U.S. Army Captain and Ranger, to claim that military investments in alternative fuels are "overall indicative of a Department of Defense that just does not have its priorities straight at all."
The Wall Street Journal applauded a court decision invalidating the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) net neutrality regulations, spinning the rules as hampering innovation and benefitting only "the giants of Silicon Valley," despite experts who warned of the damaging impact such a ruling might have on the public's access to online content.
A Fox host and Wall Street Journal assistant editor disputed the existence of a multiplier effect with unemployment benefits -- which generates more dollars worth of economic activity than the dollars invested in the program by boosting consumption -- though the effect is well supported by economic research.
Unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed expired at the end of 2013, abruptly cutting off benefits for 1.3 million Americans. Department of Labor estimates show it would cost approximately $25 billion to extend the unemployment insurance for another year, a step President Obama urged Congress to take during a January 7 speech in which he argued that such an extension would not only help people but help the economy and create jobs.
Wall Street Journal assistant editor James Freeman and Fox host Steve Doocy took issue with the idea that unemployment insurance benefits have a net-positive effect on the economy during the January 9 edition of Fox and Friends:
DOOCY: We heard this from the president the other day. Unemployment creates jobs. And?
FREEMAN: Yeah. It's hard to explain that one. The administration argument is that there's something called a multiplier, where when you put $1 of unemployment benefits into the economy it creates $1.80 in economic activity. So if this is true, this would suggest we should all stay home and the country will become wealthier by giving us unemployment benefits.
During the segment, Fox aired an on-screen graphic mocked the notion as "fuzzy math":
But economists agree that the economic benefits of unemployment benefits outweigh the cost. In what's known as the multiplier-effect -- which Freeman dismissed -- recipients of unemployment benefits reliably spend that money. In fact, Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi estimated that each dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates about $1.55 in economic activity. To put it another way, spending $25 billion on unemployment benefits would increase consumer spending and raise by $37.8 billion, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
What's more, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained that benefits for "unemployed workers in hard-pressed communities helps prevent the spread of layoffs and job losses in those communities." EPI emphasized (emphasis original):
We find that continuing the extensions through 2014 would generate spending that would support 310,000 jobs. If this program is discontinued, the economy will lose these jobs.
Fox News' timeline of the ongoing government shutdown cherry-picked dates to omit congressional Republicans' conception and furtherance of the shutdown over their demand to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare).
As the government shutdown loomed and then became a reality, right-wing media figures have called for maintained Republican commitment to keeping the government closed until Democrats agree to significant changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Fox News host Eric Bolling denied that anyone in the United States has ever been deprived of health care. He's wrong -- millions of people have been denied care or have had their insurance coverage rescinded, denied, or altered by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, policy loopholes, and various other reasons. Here are just a few examples.
Fox News host Gregg Jarrett used the new round of Congressional hearings on the September 11, 2012, attacks on the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi to push some of the network's favorite Benghazi lies.
This week, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led a new round of hearings into the Benghazi attacks. The committee heard testimony from Retired Admiral Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who led the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) which issued an independent report in December about the attacks.
On the September 19 edition of Happening Now, host Gregg Jarrett and contributor Jonah Goldberg used the hearings to push some of Fox's favorite, long-debunked falsehoods about the attacks and the Obama administration's response.
Jarrett posited that US military forces could have arrived in time to rescue those under attack in Benghazi but had decided not to do so. Both he and Goldberg wondered why Mullen and Pickering had "dismissed" this idea, with Goldberg adding, "That's outrageous that no one was ready to have anybody come rescue any American on 9/11, which is sort of a famous terrorist holiday. And secondly, they didn't know how long this fight was going to take."
But the theory that U.S. forces could have made it in time for a rescue or intervention has been repeatedly debunked. The ARB determined that all "interagency response was timely and appropriate" but there was not sufficient time for "armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference," and the Pentagon has said that fighters could not have been sent to Benghazi because they lacked the refueling tankers that would have been needed to get them there. Additionally, the Pentagon said Special Operations Command Africa instructed a team of Special Forces not to leave for Benghazi because they would be needed to provide security in Tripoli. That second team would not have reached Benghazi before the attacks were concluded. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called out those who claimed more could have been done to rescue those in Benghazi for having a "cartoonish impression of the military."
Jarrett also pushed the myth that a stand down order was issued that night, saying, "The infamous stand down order, we still haven't gotten to the bottom of that, assuming that it even happened."
Yet the head of Special Forces in Tripoli has testified that no such stand down order was ever given, no evidence has ever emerged suggesting such orders were given, and reinforcements actually arrived from Tripoli in time for the second attack on the facility. Even the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee has acknowledged no such order was given.
Jarrett concluded by claiming that "we still don't really know" where President Obama was during the attacks, adding, "presumably he went to bed while Americans were being slaughtered."
This smear flies in the face of testimony from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who has stated that Obama was "well-informed" during the attack and that Obama ordered military leaders to do "whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there."
Jarrett's lies are only a drop in the ocean of the Benghazi falsehoods Fox has pushed for the last year.