National Review Online's Heather Mac Donald attempted to justify her irresponsible and false claims about black students by highlighting the story of a 14-year-old boy accused of murder, conflating the story with recent data on racial disparities in school discipline and absurdly claiming that the story is evidence that black students do not suffer from discrimination.
In March, Mac Donald, who has a history of racially charged rhetoric, wrote an NRO column that misleadingly conflated the disproportionately high rates of suspension for black students with crime rate statistics and "family breakdown." The column also highlighted the story of 14-year-old Kahton Anderson, who was arrested for the shooting death of a 39-year-old bus passenger, to paint black children as inherently more likely to commit crimes, asking, "Did anyone doubt the race of the killer, even though the media did not disclose it?" later claiming it is "common sense that black students are more likely to be disruptive in class."
In an April 4 post, Mac Donald again highlighted the Anderson story, saying, "Naturally, he was raised by a single mother" and using information reported by The New York Times which she claimed "is a case study in everything that the civil-rights complex assiduously denies." Mac Donald went on to portray Anderson as being representative of black youth in general:
The bus shooting was hardly unusual. Gunfire among these warring crews is routine; one crew member was shot to death last July. And as in Kahton's case, the lack of impulse control that results in such mindless violence on the streets unavoidably shows up in the classroom as well. It defies common sense that a group with such high rates of lawlessness outside school would display model behavior inside school. Multiply Anderson's homicide several-hundred-fold, and you get the nearly ten to one disparity between the murder rate among 14- to 17-year-old black males and that of their white and Hispanic male peers combined. Multiply his classroom infractions several-hundred-thousand-fold, and you get the three-to-one suspension disparity that so agitates the civil-rights and education establishments.
Washington Times senior opinion editor Emily Miller launched a baseless attack on a Maryland bill that protects transgender people from discrimination, repeating the debunked myth that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination protections and sneak into women's restrooms.
On March 27, the Maryland House of Delegates approved the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014, which prohibits discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD plans to sign the bill into law, but opponents seized on the bill's public accommodations protections to claim that the so-called "bathroom bill" would lead to a spike in sexual assaults.
In an April 2 column for the Times, Miller echoed that attack, denouncing the bill as "dangerous" and warning that it "endangers every single female":
The most dangerous impact of this new law is that a man cannot be stopped from going into a women's bathroom, locker room or pool changing room.
The state does not specify that a person must have undergone a sex-change operation to have their legal rights of "gender identity" protected.
A man doesn't even have to dress like a woman.
To be considered transgender, you just have to give a "consistent and uniform assertion" of believing you are supposed to be the opposite sex. Or, a person has to provide evidence that the non-biological sex is "sincerely held as part of the person's core identity."
No one knows exactly how many people believe they were born the wrong sex and want to act out on it. A Los Angeles County Department of Public Health report in 2012 estimates that 0.2 percent of the population is transgender.
Even if we accept this very high count, that means 12,000 of the 6 million Marylanders will benefit by this law that endangers every single female.
Fox News reporter and serial misinformer Todd Starnes failed to disclose that the source for his latest bogus religious liberty horror story is the vice president of sales at the publishing house promoting Starnes' latest book - a book that, conveniently enough, warns of growing "intolerance" against American Christians.
On March 29, Starnes reported that five-year-old Gabriella Perez had been rebuked by a teacher for trying to pray in her Oviedo, FL school lunchroom. The girl recounted the alleged episode in a YouTube video posted by her father, Marcos Perez. Starnes' report featured an original interview with Perez, who told Starnes that he had long had concerns about "issues and agendas we see in the culture war."
But on April 1, the Orlando Sentinel raised doubts about the credibility of Perez's story. According to the Sentinel's report, none of the staff who could have been at the cafeteria at the time of the incident recall witnessing the student being spoken to about prayer. The staff member who allegedly spoke to Gabriella Perez hasn't been identified, and the school has reiterated that it has no policy prohibiting students from praying.
The Sentinel also revealed that Marcos Perez is the vice president of sales at Charisma House, the publisher of Starnes' soon-to-be-published collection of religious liberty horror stories, God Less America: Real Stories from the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values (emphasis added):
School officials have not interviewed Gabriella, who was pulled from the school by her parents the day after the video was posted. The Perezes said they accelerated existing plans to home school her. Her father is vice president of sales at Charisma House, a Lake Mary-based Christian book publisher. The company is currently promoting the book "God Less America: Real Stories from the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values," by Fox News host Todd Starnes. Starnes reported on the lunch prayer controversy for Fox News Radio. Marcos Perez said he did the interview with Starnes because "I'm passionate about the cause." He seemed distressed by any notion of ulterior motives. Using his family to promote a book "would be egregious," he said. "I'm a father first, a VP of sales second."
As Right Wing Watch noted, Perez was recently featured in a press release promoting Starnes' book.
Starnes' report on the alleged incident now includes an editor's note disclosing Perez's employment at the top of the article:
As the online news and commentary landscape continues to expand, the nascent conservative web magazine The Federalist has quickly carved out a role as a brash, anti-establishment site. It has also become an outlet for often-rabid anti-LGBT talking points.
Launched in September 2013 as a "web magazine on politics, policy, and culture," The Federalist is helmed by publisher Ben Domenech, a co-founder of the right-wing blog RedState.com and senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for its opposition to climate science and funding from industry sources like the Koch brothers. Co-founder Sean Davis came to conservative journalism after a career in GOP politics, having worked for Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senior editors David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway and senior writer Robert Tracinski round out The Federalist's leadership.
In its short existence, The Federalist has won plaudits from conservative organizations and activists, not least those best known for their anti-LGBT advocacy. A look at the website's track record on LGBT issues leaves little doubt as to why The Federalist counts some of the most notorious anti-LGBT groups among its most ardent fans.
Touted by Domenech as a publication "that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment," The Federalist regularly frames its opposition to LGBT equality as brave defiance of elite conventions. This posture leads The Federalist to inveigh against even the most basic protections for LGBT people.
Take writer Rachel Lu's opposition to anti-bullying legislation. In a March 18 piece, Lu condemned such legislation as an attempt to "normalize homosexuality and transgendered behavior." (Being transgender isn't a "behavior.") Lu situated anti-bullying policies in a larger context in which progressives seek to enforce an "Orwellian vision" of LGBT equality.
Lamenting that LGBT acceptance has become "thoroughly conventional," Lu argued that young voters' support for marriage equality is the result of "unreflective ignorance" about "what marriage is." Lu defended an exclusively heterosexual conception of marriage by noting that the vast majority of "cultural and historical and literary references to marriage" concern heterosexual relationships. "Enjoying sexual difference," Lu concluded, "is critical to almost all of these romances, and while homosexuals do have Plato's Symposium and the poetry of Sappho, their stock of cultural associations is much, much thinner."
Other Federalist writers couch their opposition to marriage equality in decidedly less literary terms. Hemingway, who refers to straight marriage as "natural marriage," explained in a February piece that "the penis and vagina parts are actually key to this entire shebang. See: human history."
Contributor Hunter Baker echoed Hemingway's argument in a post arguing that opponents of marriage equality are just being "commonsensical." In what apparently passes for robust argument at The Federalist, Baker used the example of his children's confusion when they learned of the existence of same-sex relationships. They couldn't "understand why a man would want to share romantic love with another man" - definitive evidence to Baker that homosexuality is unnatural. He then compared his children's aversion to homosexuality to what he called children's reflexive "tilts away" from racism. (In reality, studies of how young children respond to dolls show that they respond more favorably to white dolls than to black ones.)
And then there's Jesus, whom writer Andrew Walker assured readers would not support marriage equality. But fear not, Walker counseled pro-equality Christians, "no sin is wider than Christ's mercy if one will only repent and believe."
The Washington Times praised the evangelical organization World Vision for reversing its decision to employ Christians in legal same-sex marriages, seizing on the charity's U-turn to denounce "the lavender lobby" for its fight against anti-LGBT discrimination.
On March 24, World Vision - best known for its global sponsor-a-child programs - announced that it would permit gay Christians in legal marriages to work for the charity. After an uproar from Christian conservatives, the charity reversed course two days later, with World Vision president Richard Stearns and board chairman Jim Bere asking for "forgiveness."
In an editorial published on April 1, the Times applauded World Vision's decision to reinstate anti-gay discrimination, contrasting World Vision's decision with other organizations that have succumbed to "the lavender lobby":
World Vision's short-lived reconsideration of belief was not made under pressure. Even the most optimistic homosexual-rights advocate would never expect an organization faithful to the Gospel to ignore the clearly stated words of St. Paul, condemning marital combinations other than husband and wife, e.g., a man and a woman.
The restoration of the status quo ante underscores the biblical admonition that a Christian can be in the world without being of the world, and conforming to it. World Vision's administrators forgot for a moment -- well, for two days -- that they cannot serve both God and mammon.
The pressure to cave to the lavender lobby is increasing, and some organizations have been quick to cave. The brewers of Guinness, Heineken and Samuel Adams beers withdrew their sponsorship of St. Patrick's Day parades in New York City and Boston because organizers wouldn't invite flamboyant activists to flaunt their cause in the march. The Boy Scouts of America rewrote their pledge of morality to allow actively homosexual Scouts to join.
World Vision's example shows that it's never too late to see errors and correct them. World Vision's donors made it clear that turning a blind eye to the charity's religious roots was not acceptable, and that they could no longer contribute to the sponsor-a-child programs.
The Times concluded that thanks to World Vision's flip-flop, "needy children" wouldn't be "collateral damage in the culture wars," ignoring the fact that it was conservative anti-gay groups that chose to politicize World Vision's short-lived decision not to discriminate against gay workers.
The Times has long been engaged in a crusade for anti-LGBT discrimination, displaying little regard for the "collateral damage" such discrimination creates. The Times championed an Arizona bill that would have allowed business owners to refuse to serve gay customers, echoing its earlier attacks on "militant homosexual activists" who insisted on equal treatment from business owners.
Image via Flickr.com user Kellie Parker
Fox News used a misleading report from the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) to accuse the Obama administration of "destabilizing the nation" by releasing undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds. In fact, data show that the Obama administration has met its enforcement mandate to prioritize the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions, which has resulted in a substantial increase of such deportations.
The Washington Times repeated the myth that the FBI has ended its relationship with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), ignoring that the FBI had already debunked that claim and distorting SPLC's work against domestic hate groups.
In a March 28 editorial, the Times savagely attacked SPLC founder Morris Dees - asserting that he founded the nonprofit in part "to get rich" - baselessly charging that SPLC defines "hate crimes" as "Christian opposition to same-sex marriage." The Times then applauded the FBI for cutting off ties with the group - something it didn't actually do:
The SPLC never identifies the hate groups about to engulf the land, who they are or where they are assembling their regiments of engulfers. With the Ku Klux Klan shrinking to insignificance, the SPLC, which is thought to be sitting on a treasury of a quarter of a billion dollars, has lately turned its lurid appeals to prosperous but frightened gays.
"Hate crimes" by SPLC definition now include Christian opposition to same-sex marriage.
This week it emerged that the FBI, which has included SPLC data as "a resource," has finally severed its link with the organization and dumped SPLC from the bureau's Hate Crime Web page.
The FBI offered no explanation of why now, but the dumping follows appeals of 15 family groups to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and FBI Director James B. Comey to sever the connection. We think that was a good day's work.
In just a few sentences, the Times' editorial board peddles a number of blatant lies about the SPLC.
SPLC does identify hundreds of prominent hate groups across the U.S., which is why it's so despised by right-wing extremists to begin with.
SPLC doesn't considering opposing marriage equality to be a hate crime. The SPLC has identified extreme anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA) as hate groups because they peddle anti-LGBT smears and misinformation, not because they oppose marriage equality. Despite its strident anti-gay stances, for instance, even the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) isn't on the SPLC's list of hate groups.
Meanwhile, the Times' claim that the FBI chose to "sever [its] connection" with the SPLC is merely the latest sign that the paper's editorial board is impervious to facts, particularly when it comes to LGBT issues.
While right-wing media gleefully pounced on the FBI's decision to remove non-government organizations from a list of "resource" groups on a civil rights page, that decision applied to all non-government organizations, including groups like the Anti-Defamation League, equally. The bureau's website still lists the SPLC as a "public outreach" partner in the fight against hate crimes. Days before the Times published its editorial, the FBI contradicted the right-wing media narrative that by telling the Daily Caller that the bureau continues to receive support "from a variety of organizations," but had simply "elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page."
Nowhere in its editorial did the Times even acknowledge that the FBI had corrected the record. The paper's pattern of rabid homophobia is disturbing enough, but its willingness to lie in the service of bigotry is even more appalling.
From the March 31 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
Fox & Friends Sunday falsely claimed that raising the minimum wage would harm female workers, contributing to what they called the "phony war on women" -- but women make up the majority of minimum wage earners, and would significantly benefit from a raise.
On the March 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Sunday, co-host Anna Kooiman and Independent Women's Forum Executive Director Sabrina Schaeffer pushed several debunked minimum wage myths, falsely claiming that a majority of workers making minimum wage are younger, and suggesting that Democrats who wanted to pay women more were in fact hurting families and workers, contributing to the "phony war on women" (emphasis added):
SCHAEFFER: The reality is a majority of minimum wage earners are working part time. The majority are younger workers 16-24, about 50 percent are, so it's not quite this dire situation where you have the head of households who are not able to care for their families. And there are -- when the price of something goes up, people tend to buy less.
KOOIMAN: So you're saying it's continuing this phony war on women?
SCHAEFFER: Yeah, of course, and you know, this is definitely sort of a legislative aim looking towards looking at the midterm elections but really what would help people is robust job creation because that's what gives workers -- all workers, especially women who need often part time or flexible work arrangements, more opportunities we want more jobs, we want different kinds of jobs, a variety of jobs, we want women who need part-time work to be able to find it, they're going to have better negotiating powers, higher wages when we have a stronger economy overall.
Kooiman concluded the segment by suggesting raising the minimum wage was not a "long-term solution" that would help "job creation."
In fact, women make up the majority of minimum wage earners and would benefit disproportionately from an increase in the minimum wage. ThinkProgress reported that according to research from the Center for American Progress, "two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women," (despite making up only 48.3 percent of the total workforce) making women "far more likely to benefit from a wage increase" than men:
Furthermore, as sixty percent of women are the primary or co-breadwinner in their household, raising the minimum wage would have a significant positive effect for families. The majority of minimum wage workers are adults over the age of 25, and despite Fox's fearmongering, numerous economic studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage would have little effect on jobs and could even increase hiring, while boosting the economy in the short run. Finally, the Economic Policy Institute found that the declining value of the minimum wage was a major contributing factor to growing levels of economic inequality, weakening low-wage workers' bargaining position.
Raising the minimum wage would benefit over 13 million women and 30 million American workers overall -- but that still hasn't distracted Fox News from its long history of campaigning against raising the minimum wage.
From the March 29 edition of SiriusXM's Media Matters Radio:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 28 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media outlets including Fox News falsely claimed that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was only able to reach the benchmark of 6 million enrollees by signing up undocumented immigrants and "Mexican nationals" at Mexican consulates. In fact, Mexican nationals -- like all American citizens and legal immigrants -- are mandated by the law to sign up for insurance, and outreach efforts at Mexican consulates that work to educate Mexicans legally living in the United States about government programs are nothing new.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right-wing legal organization working internationally to criminalize homosexuality, plans to host "An Evening with Erick Erickson" next month. It's the latest sign that the Fox News contributor, who has previously touted ADF's work, is becoming a de facto spokesman for the group.
ADF plans to host the event - which requires a general admission fee of $25 - on April 24 at the Hilton Atlanta Northeast. According to the event's online registration page, the evening will focus on sharing "inspirational and motivational stories of victory" against the "increasingly aggressive attack" on religious liberty:
As the go-to legal organization for social conservatives, ADF has compiled a record of extreme anti-gay activism. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported in July 2013 that the group has worked to help criminalize gay sex in Belize. Benjamin Bull, the executive director of ADF Global, has applauded the criminalization of homosexuality in India and has traveled to Russia to meet with Yelena Mizulina, one of the authors of that country's notorious "gay propaganda" law.
Domestically, ADF regularly defends anti-gay discrimination by representing business owners who turn away gay customers. Along with the Center for Arizona Policy, ADF helped draft the controversial license to discriminate legislation vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) in February. The group also argued in favor of state anti-sodomy laws, asserting that gay sex "causes far more disease than opposite-sex sodomy."
Despite - or perhaps because of - ADF's extreme record, Erickson has established himself as one of the group's prominent supporters. In an August post for his RedState blog, he actually solicited donations for the organization, lauding its "lone and brace warriors" combating the "evil" campaign for LGBT equality. That solicitation came in response to a New Mexico Supreme Court ruling against an ADF client who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
Many Fox News personalities recoiled once they saw the kind of extreme anti-gay legislation ADF was trying to push through state legislatures, but Erickson did the opposite, becoming a de facto spokesman for the organization. By keynoting an ADF event, Erickson has made clear that his support for anti-gay discrimination goes beyond rhetoric - he's actually willing to work to fundraise for one of the country's most extreme anti-equality organizations.
From the March 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...