As we pointed out, Fox Nation used the preposterous headline "Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico" in trumpeting a Fox News report about a closure of land in a national wildlife refuge in Arizona:
In the June 15 report, America Live guest host Shannon Bream says, "A massive stretch of Arizona now off limits to Americans. Critics say the administration is, in effect, giving a major strip of the Southwest back to Mexico."
There are a few problems with this: A representative of the refuge told Media Matters that the "massive stretch" of land is about five miles square, it's been closed since 2006, and it obviously hasn't been given back to Mexico.
During a discussion of changes to immigration detention centers on the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, the following on-screen graphic aired:
From the June 11 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the June 10 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
Loading the player reg...
On June 10, The Cato Institute's Michael F. Cannon responded to a story about "illegal immigrants helping to clean up the oil" by joking "I hear they're very absorbent" on his Twitter page. The post appears to have since been deleted:
H/T Think Progress
Update: The Washington Post's Dave Weigel writes that Cannon was "joking about what he sees as craziness in Louisiana," in response to "a local Louisiana sheriff fretting that undocumented workers might bring a 'criminal element' to the gulf if brought in for oil spill cleanup."
From the June 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Loading the player reg...
Yesterday we told you about the sick contest Columbus, Ohio's WTVN AM 610 (a Clear Channel station) held last week in reaction to Mayor Michael Coleman's decision to keep city employees from visiting Arizona on official business because of the state's new controversial immigration law.
The prize was a free trip to Phoenix, AZ for "a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert." The station's promotion of the contest also implored contestants to be "sure to bring your green card."
WTVN AM 610 station manager Brian Dytko is now apologizing saying in part, "We apologize for our actions here. We are always striving to engage our community on important issues of the day and sometimes we do a better job than others, but we always take the input of our community."
This is Brian Dytko, Station Manager of WTVN with a message regarding our station's recent "Win a Trip to Phoenix, Arizona" promotional contest. Our contest was meant as a humorous response to a City of Columbus ban on travel to Arizona by city employees. In fact, a key element of the promotion was that city employees were specifically invited to enter the contest. We regret that our promotional copy has been characterized as condoning violence. This was not our intent, and we do not condone violence of any kind. We apologize for our actions here. We are always striving to engage our community on important issues of the day and sometimes we do a better job than others, but we always take the input of our community seriously.
While addressing both Arizona's controversial new immigration law and national immigration reform, media outlets have reported that polls found widespread support for Arizona's law. But these reports ignored recent national polls finding that large majorities also support providing a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Columbus, Ohio's WTVN AM 610 (a Clear Channel station) ran the following contest last week in reaction to Mayor Michael Coleman's decision to keep city employees from visiting Arizona on official business because of the state's new controversial immigration law:
In response, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is calling on WTVN and Clear Channel to apologize for the station's contest in which the winner received a free trip to Arizona "to spend a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert."
"The passage of SB 1070 has provoked a lot of reprehensible anti-Latino and anti-immigrant rhetoric but a radio station bankrolling someone to 'hunt' human beings for sport represents a new low," stated Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. "The owners and directors of WTVN might think that this is all in good fun but what is happening to Latinos – citizen, legal, and undocumented alike – in Arizona is no joke. We are asking for an immediate and unequivocal apology from the station and its parent company."
Noting that the station's contest has triggered considerable outrage in Latino communities in Ohio, Arizona, and nationwide, Murguia concluded, "It is important to keep in mind that the American people own the airwaves over which WTVN broadcasts. As such, we will ask FCC Commissioners to ensure that threats against American citizens – such as the one encouraged and promoted by WTVN – are not taken lightly and dealt with in an appropriate manner as soon as possible."
You can share your thoughts about the contest with WTVN and Clear Channel by clicking here.
Ed Whelan and Volokh Conspiracy blogger Stewart Baker are attacking Elena Kagan for a brief the Solicitor General's office filed asking the Supreme Court to overturn one aspect of an Arizona law dealing with illegal immigration. (No, not the controversial SB 1070 that was passed earlier this year, but another law, which was passed in 2006 and punishes businesses for hiring undocumented immigrants.) Their attack is bizarre.
First, as Whelan and Baker acknowledge, the brief -- which was submitted by the Solicitor General's office on May 28 -- does not bear Kagan's name, because Kagan had recused herself before the brief was filed. Second, another blogger at the conserviative-leaning Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler has taken issue with the attacks on the Solicitor General's brief. And third, the overwrought is internally contradictory.
Baker, a former Bush administration official attacked the Solicitor General's office for filing a brief in Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria that argues that the Supreme Court should strike down a portion of an Arizona law that imposes punishment on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Baker states: "The brief takes positions that from a political and policy point of view are hard to square with, well, sanity. In leaving little room for states to address a problem the feds haven't solved, the brief gets to the left of the Ninth Circuit, which upheld this law." Later in the blog post, Baker states: "What does all this say about Elena Kagan, woman of mystery and Solicitor General until two weeks ago? Nothing good, I fear."
Whelan highlighted Baker's comments about Kagan, stating: "I'll highlight here Baker's harsh criticism of Elena Kagan's presumed role in the matter:
In fact, though, as Baker acknowledges in a portion of his post quoted by Whelan, Kagan "stopped acting as Solicitor General on May 17, and this brief was presumably filed on May 28, when it was released." Indeed, Kagan's name is not on the brief that Baker and Whelan attack. Baker's and Whelan's attack is based solely on pure speculation about how much work Kagan did on the brief before recusing herself from working as Solicitor General because of her Supreme Court nomination. Furthermore, even if they did have such evidence, it wouldn't be evidence of Kagan's personal views on the issue. As Kagan said in written questions regarding her Solicitor General nomination:
I understand that role [of the Solicitor General] as representing the interests of the United States, not my personal views. I indeed think that I would enjoy, as well as be deeply honored by, the Solicitor General's position if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. The advocate's role is frequently to put aside any interests or positions other than those of her clients.
From the May 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
With a hand from the Washington Post, Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Kirk Adams is doing his part to make sure people remain confused about the state's new immigration law.
Adams writes in an op-ed titled "The truth behind Arizona's immigration law" that the modification made to the original law "makes it crystal-clear that racial profiling is not and will not be tolerated." He adds that "the legislation clearly states that law enforcement officials 'may not consider race, color or national origin' while enforcing immigration law."
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. [emphasis added]
In commentary on the statute provided to the Arizona Republic, University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin said of this provision, "I am deeply surprised that anyone construes this law to prohibit racial profiling."
And he is not alone.
Yesterday, President Obama was asked at his press conference whether he would support a boycott of Arizona over the state's controversial immigration laws, and Obama said the following: "I'm the President of the United States; I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts. That's something that the private citizens can make a decision about." As I noted at the time, Fox News' Megyn Kelly interpreted the president's comments as "refusing to condemn the boycott of Arizona," which is wildly misleading because Obama also refused to support the boycott - he refused to take a position one way or another.
But if you thought that was bad, you should see Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr.'s tour-de-force display of hackery and mendacity on Fox & Friends this morning, as he tried to convince everyone that Obama "tacitly endorsed" the boycott and is thus engaging in the same "secitionalism" as the supporters of slavery who "destroyed the United States in the 19th century." Oh, and just for good measure, he tossed out the "community organizer" and Saul Alinsky GOP buzzwords, as well as a Nazi comparison.
Video below the jump, which you really have to watch to believe:
During President Obama's press conference this afternoon, he was asked by a reporter if he would "support the boycott that some organizations are calling [for] towards" Arizona over that state's controversial immigration law. Obama responded, in part: "I'm the President of the United States; I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts. That's something that the private citizens can make a decision about." Here's the video of the exchange:
A few minutes later, after the press conference had concluded, Megyn Kelly, host of Fox News' America Live, offered the "headlines" from the presser, and on immigration she said that Obama "refus[ed] to condemn the boycott of Arizona":
From the May 27 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...