From the August 7 edition of WSAU's Feedback:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News figures, in defending Chick-fil-A from criticism over its aggressive opposition to marriage equality, are covering up the restaurant's anti-gay record, which includes millions in corporate donations to groups that spread misinformation about LGBT individuals and marriages.
Chick-fil-A has drawn criticism since its president, Dan Cathy, came out strongly against marriage equality, saying, among other things, that "we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' "
In response to that criticism, which he referred to as "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry," Fox News host Mike Huckabee declared August 1 to be "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and asked his audience to eat at Chick-fil-A today in order to "affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse."
Fox News figures were quick to take up the charge. Fox host Eric Bolling supported the effort by asking Twitter followers to send him pictures of themselves eating at Chick-fil-A. On the July 31 edition of The Five, Bolling aired a few of the pictures, which he said showed that support for Chick-fil-A has "nothing to do with the gay rights discussion."
Fox News has spent years complaining that roughly half of all Americans "don't pay taxes" and calling for tax hikes on working Americans. Now Fox is decrying the insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act as a tax hike on the middle class -- even though it will affect only a small amount of people.
Right-wing media figures are fearmongering over the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) newly announced decision to shut down several Border Patrol stations. In fact, the CBP's decision is a strategic one, aimed at focusing efforts on high-priority areas closer to the border.
Within the next six months, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will close nine Border Patrol stations to move forty-one agents closer to the southern and northern borders, media outlets are reporting, citing CBP spokesman Bill Brooks. Brooks said that some of stations that will be closed are hundreds of miles from a border and that the decision is part of a strategy to use resources wisely and "increasingly concentrate our resources on the border."
In a statement to Fox News, Brooks likewise said, "These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally." He continued:
By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission.
Nevertheless, right-wing media seized on the announcement to fearmonger about border security. The Drudge Report posted the following headline:
Drudge's headline linked to a FoxNews.com article, which has the same headline. However, FoxNews.com's article clearly explains that the CBP is closing the stations to "reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border."
Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes, in a post to his Twitter feed, wrote: "Obama is shutting down 9 border patrol stations ... and the invasion continues." (Following the June 25 Supreme Court ruling striking down several parts of Arizona's immigration law, Starnes similarly warned of "Mexican Invaders.")
Starnes also wrote: "Obama wants to close 9 border stations ... Maybe he's turning them into voting stations instead?"
Right-wing media have reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling upholding President Obama's health care law by claiming it is "a dark day for freedom" and "the end of America as we know it." But the decision allows the health care law to implement reforms that will protect and extend affordable insurance coverage to millions of Americans.
Right-wing media figures are heaping harsh criticism on Chief Justice John Roberts for his opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act as constitutional. These critics ignore Roberts' record as Chief Justice, which is very conservative. But even this conservative justice recognized that the Constitution gives Congress the power to address the nation's health care crisis with the Affordable Care Act.
Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro blasted the Chief Justice:
I knew that Roberts was a bad pick because he didn't have a proven track record of adherence to the Constitution. He was picked by President Bush because Bush knew he didn't have a track record - and he knew that Roberts would sail through the confirmation process without a hitch.
That should have been an indicator that Roberts was a rotten pick. Nobody doubted Robert Bork's originalist credentials. Nobody doubted Clarence Thomas'. Nobody doubts Judge Janice Rogers Brown's. But nobody had any reason to buy into Roberts as an originalist. Yet they did.
Dan Gainor, Media Research Center's vice president for Business and Culture called the decision to nominate Roberts "awful."
Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes applied the "L word" to Roberts.
This attempt to paint Chief Justice Roberts as a closet liberal is absurd. Experts have called the Supreme Court under Roberts the "most conservative in modern history." As the leader of a five justice conservative majority, Roberts has played a leading role in decisions like Citizens United (empowering corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited money in political campaigns); Wal-Mart (preventing women alleging sex discrimination from joining together to seek justice); Concepcion (allowing corporations to manipulate fine print in contracts to keep ripped off consumers from joining together in court); and Ledbetter (preventing a woman who was paid less than men from going to court).
Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce enjoyed a perfect year with the Roberts Court this term, winning every case in which the Court ruled on the position the Chamber took, according to a study by the Constitutional Accountability Center. (The Chamber took no position on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but merely argued that if the mandate were struck down, the entire Act should be invalidated). According to the study, the Chamber has not won every case in a term since at least 1994.
Rather than calling John Roberts names or trying to make the absurd case that he is a closet liberal, the right should simply acknowledge that their crusade to kill the Affordable Care Act failed because they lost the vote of the deeply conservative, Republican-appointed Chief Justice who heads one of the most conservative and pro-corporate courts in history.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, right-wing media figures claimed Chief Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act shows that he's liberal. But Roberts' recognizing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act doesn't change his record as presiding over the most conservative and corporate-friendly court in recent history.
Right-wing media have responded to the Supreme Court's decision upholding the health care mandate -- the requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fee -- by claiming that President Obama has instituted the "biggest tax increase in the history of the world" and a "massive, regressive tax on all Americans." In fact, the fee will only be applied to a small percentage of people who choose not to purchase health insurance.
Today, the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as constitutional. Right-wing media figures immediately began venting on Twitter. Here is an hour's worth of the worst right-wing ranting about the Supreme Court decision after it was announced:
Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes reacted to the June 25 Supreme Court ruling striking down several parts of Arizona's immigration law by warning about "Mexican invaders" and questioning whether Arizona should consider secession.
Starnes added to those comments during the June 26 edition of his "Fox News and Commentary" radio segment. In the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, Starnes asked the Republican presidential candidate why he wasn't "down on the border ... vowing to defend American soil from the Mexican invaders":
STARNES: Justice Scalia says Arizona is under siege -- lives are in jeopardy.
Now is not the time for wishy washy statements about giving states more latitude.
Now is the time for tough talk, sir.
Why weren't you down on the border with a bullhorn in hand, Sheriff Joe and Governor Brewer by your side, vowing to defend American soil from the Mexican invaders?
During a radio interview today on WSAU, Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes defended Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro for his heckling of President Obama last week. Starnes justified Munro's behavior by comparing Obama's statement on the immigration policy change to appearing in front of reporters and "declaring martial law effective immediately."
"What if the president had gotten up there and said, 'I'm declaring martial law effective immediately,'" Starnes asked. "Would decorum still be in place for something like that?"
When asked if he was equating Obama's policy and martial law, Starnes replied: "Absolutely. Absolutely."
From the June 19 edition of WSAU's Wisconsin Morning News:
STARNES: I mean, there's question over the legality of what he did. And of course, you know, it's funny because people raised Cain because that reporter dared ask a question. They accused him of breaching protocol. Well, some people say the president breached the Constitution by what he did.
And let me ask you a question. You know, that's raised a lot of controversy over this reporter who interrupted the president. But here's my -- just a hypothetical here. What if the president had gotten up there and said, "I'm declaring martial law effective immediately." Would decorum still be in place for something like that?
TOM KING (CO-HOST): Are you equating the two?
STARNES: Absolutely. Absolutely.
KING: The announcement he made with declaring martial law, you're equating the two?
STARNES: Absolutely. The president has just -- the president has just welcomed 800,000 people, illegals, into this country. And without any -- without any consideration for Congress. This president -- so my president is this. At point does the mainstream media -- at what point are they allowed to breach the decorum?
Fox News' Sean Hannity hosted Munro last night and claimed "the mainstream Obama-mania media has jumped all over Munro for daring to question the president." Though Munro has defenders in Starnes and Hannity, several high profile Fox Newsers have criticized his behavior. Appearing on today's edition of Fox News Radio, Bret Baier agreed that Munro's behavior was out of line. And yesterday, White House reporter Ed Henry also said on Fox News Radio that it "was a big mistake."
On Saturday, Brooklyn hosted its 15th Annual Brooklyn Pride Night Parade. Fox News Radio reporter and anti-gay mouthpiece Todd Starnes was in attendance and reacted pretty much exactly how anyone familiar with Starnes would expect – by using Twitter to mock the parade's attendees:
Starnes also took to his Facebook page to complain about the event, writing:
Starnes' comments – which sound a lot like the kind of thing you'd hear from a homophobic teenager – weren't the only anti-gay remarks he made over the weekend.
From the May 10 edition of FoxNews.com's FoxNews.com Live:
Loading the player reg...
President Obama today made a surprise visit to Afghanistan to speak with U.S. troops and meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign a "Strategic Partnership Agreement." The right-wing media have responded by claiming that the visit constitutes an example of Obama "spiking the football" and "celebrating" the death of Osama bin Laden.
On Monday, Fox News' resident anti-gay mouthpiece Todd Starnes posted an article about a proposed city ordinance in Hutchinson, Kansas which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment, and public accommodations.
Rather than focus on the specifics of the ordinance, or Kansas' history of supporting anti-LGBT discrimination, Starnes chose to depict the measure as an assault on churches: