Fox Panelist Hoenig Wrongly Defends Muslim Profiling With WWII Japanese Camps [TW: Hate Speech, Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Racial Profiling]
During a panel discussion, one of the show’s guests, Jonathan Hoenig stated: “We should have been profiling on September 12, 2001.” He then doubled-down on this sentiment (video below), saying, “The last war this country won, we put Japanese Americans in internment camps; we dropped nuclear bombs on residential city centers. So, yes, profiling would be at least a good start.”
Bolling let Hoenig express these hateful opinions unchecked, despite the fact that Japanese American Internment remains one of the most shameful periods in our nation’s history – a fact acknowledged by the US government in its 1988 apology to the former internees. Bolling and the show’s producers also ignored that such xenophobic and hateful sentiment since 9/11 has led to numerous acts of hate and violence against innocent Americans that were deemed a potential “threat” to the nation, based simply on how they looked, dressed, or worshipped.
By airing these comments without context or criticism, Fox News all but endorsed them. This is especially irresponsible, given the recent spike in hate crimes that has occurred around the country, against Sikh Americans as well as other communities. As we saw after 9/11, and as we saw during World War II, attacks on the United States, as well as military entanglements abroad, can lead to heightened emotions and confusion among the American public. Under these circumstances, people are far quicker to give in to fear and hate, and to lash out at those perceived as different. Remarks like those made on Fox News this Monday greatly exacerbate this risk, and foster an environment where entire communities are far more likely to be subjected to discrimination and violence.
One of the values that we hold dear as Americans is the concept of freedom of expression. The ability of our fellow Americans to express their beliefs freely, without persecution, is one of the things that makes this country unique, and a global leader. However, the right to free speech is not a right to spew hate on national television without question or criticism. When Hoenig spoke out in support of racial profiling, of internment, and of the marginalization of an entire religious community, Bolling had the opportunity, and the obligation, to respond. Sadly, he did not respond, and let Hoenig’s claims go unchallenged. Isn’t that the responsibility that we have entrusted to the media, our nation’s fourth estate? In front of a national television audience, Bolling and Fox News essentially gave tacit support to Hoenig’s xenophobia and hate.
In light of the recent hate crimes that we have seen, against Sikh Americans, Muslim Americans, and so many others, I strongly urge Bolling, Roger Ailes, and the Fox News Network to repudiate Hoenig’s assertions, and to apologize, not only to the Muslim American community, but to Japanese Americans, whose internment during World War II Hoenig explicitly endorsed. By sending the message that groups of Americans, due to their race, religion, national origin, or other background are inherently suspicious, Fox News is fostering an environment of fear, distrust, and ultimately hate. They must rectify this situation immediately.
Jasjit Singh is the Executive Director of the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) and has been with the organization since 2009. He currently serves on DHS Secretary’s Faith-Based Initiative and serves on the Executive Committee of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA).From the 09.20.2014 edition of FNC’s Cashin’ In:
h/t: Jasjit Singh at TPM
Fox's New Benghazi Conspiracy: "Maybe 20 Months Ago" Admin Started "Covering Up" For Hillary 2016 Campaign | Video | Media Matters for America
Fixed Noise the Benghazi! This, Benghazi! That channel.
From the 05.03.2014 edition of FNC’s Cashin’ In:
Fox News continued its assault on the labor movement during a Cashin’ In panel discussion that characterized unions as parasitic “vestigial” lobbying organizations that do nothing for their members and harm the economy. As evidence of their claims, the panel referenced a decades-long decline in union membership, but ignored the sustained political assault behind the drop as well as the empirically established economic benefits of a robust labor movement.
On the September 14 edition of Fox News’ Cashin’ In, host Eric Bolling introduced a segment about union membership drives and protests taking place this month, asking whether the effort was “bad for workers.”
Fox regular Jonathan Hoenig explained that the membership drive was necessary, because unions are “parasites” that “need new blood.”
Guest Sabrina Schaeffer complained that unions are “no longer representing workers. They’re representing political views.” She added that labor unions provide “very, very little” to their members.
Fox guest Wayne Rogers argued that unions are “vestigial,” saying, “They’re not doing anything for the worker.”
The panel blamed unionized workers for the demise of Hostess, the textile industry, and the health of the overall economy while gloating that union membership has reached a 40 year low.
Bolling’s panel was content to dedicate their airtime to glib metaphors and baseless attacks, ignoring a more substantive discussion on the reasons for declining union membership and the benefits that organized labor provide to union worker, non-union workers, and the economy as a whole.
A decline in union membership cannot be attributed to unions’ failure to provide their members with benefits. In fact, surveys indicate the desire to join a union has been growing since the 1980s. Unions are in decline in part because of an ongoing campaign from the political right that has resulted in legislation at state and federal levels making it more and more difficult to engage in the unionization process. So-called “right-to-work” laws pushed in several states by the likes of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and conservative billionaire Charles Koch have “blindsided” the labor movement and resulted in precipitous declines in those states. And U.S. law places significant obstacles in the way of workers attempting to unionize.
Unions provide significant benefits to workers, and a strong union base is also healthy for the American economy overall. According to the Economic Policy Institute, unionized workers make 13.6 percent more in wages than non-union counterparts and are 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided premiums. Others have pointed out that “unions restore demand” to the economy by raising wages and “putting more purchasing power to work.”
The “blame Unions” syndrome visits Fixed Noise yet again. And to make this point seem even sillier for the union-busters at RNCTV, aren’t all the hosts who bash them, the producers, and directors making the shows on the network involved in unions in some fashion?
Leave it to Fox to do the bidding of the House Republicans and their allies, who are doing their best to try to destroy the U.S. Postal Service. Never mind the damage that would be done to the elderly who rely on the mail to receive their prescriptions, small businesses and Americans who live in rural areas with shoddy Internet service and the thousands of Americans who earn a decent middle class living from being employed there.
No, in the view of the majority of the panel members on this Saturday’s edition of Cashin’ In, that’s a terrible thing that those people are gainfully employed and heaven forbid have union representation and it’s all their fault that the Post Office is in financial straights. And par for the course with these “business block” shows of theirs, the only voice of reason was the one, poor, lonely outnumbered “liberal” Christian Dorsey, who did actually tell the truth about one of the problems — which is that Congress has “forced the USPS to pre-fund 75 years’ worth of pensions for its employees, a requirement not made of any other public or private institution.”
Instead we were treated to the rest of them screaming that we need to privatize the Postal Service, lying and telling the audience that other industries would provide the same services less expensively and ignoring, other than Dorsey again, that they have a mandate to serve all Americans which those other companies are not bound by. It really just boiled down to another shameful exercise in union bashing, which is what these Saturday shows on Fox do week, after week, after week, or at least when they’re not attacking the poor and demonizing liberals in general.
Fox News “The Five” co-host Eric Bolling is adding to his duties at the network. According to Hal Boedeker at The Orlando Sentinel, Bolling will become the anchor of “Cashin’ In,” one of FNC’s weekend financial shows.
Anyone who frequents this blog even if you don’t watch Fox at all, knows how terrible a lot of their “business block” coverage is on Saturday mornings because I try to make a habit of posting at least some of it when I’ve got the stomach for or the time to watch any of it. This was another typically horrid segment with Cashin’ In host Cheryl Casone opening up the show by saying there is a “new debate” over whether spending on “entitlements” are “doing damage to America.”
The premise for why this “debate” is happening — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his recent attack on Americans receiving government “entitlements” that we covered here at C&L in these two posts:
What followed was the panel of Tracy Byrnes, Jonathan Hoenig and Wayne Rogers all repeating Christie’s lines about how receiving everything from food stamps, to unemployment benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, to mortgage loan modifications was somehow destroying America and turning us all into a bunch of lazy slobs that don’t want to work and just sitting home waiting for their checks to arrive.
For “balance” we had former professional wrestler and conservative John Layfield actually pointing out that it might be a good idea to feed people so we don’t end up having another revolution in America if massive amounts of people are starving. And milquetoast “liberal” and Fox regular Julian Epstein countering with how “reasonable” it would have been for President Obama to have made some “grand bargain” with Republicans and agreed to austerity measures in the middle of trying to recover from a recession.
And they ended the segment with regular Jonathan Hoenig, who is always reading straight from some script by Ayn Rand, saying we’d have real “freedom” in America if we just got rid of Medicaid and Medicare all together.
I have to wonder just how many people that watch these shows and take them seriously instead the sorry, sad joke that they actually are, consider themselves members of the “tea party” and are receiving Medicaid benefits. The terrible thing is segments like this would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous, because there are so many out there that buy into the nasty rhetoric they were spouting here.
Conservatives have been using race baiting and trying to pit working Americans against each other with language like what was used in the segment above and paint African Americans as lazy, welfare collecting bums who just want to mooch off of the government for decades. They don’t even seem to be concerned about throwing out the dog whistles these days and are just demonizing everyone now. It’s quite astounding just how much of the electorate they’re willing to turn off and piss off if enough people actually had a chance to watch this garbage and the hundreds of segments just like it Fox churns out every week.
Republicans like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are basically saying the same thing Hoenig did here with their goal of destroying our social safety nets. They’re just a little more subtle about it.
Yesterday’s Cashin’ In was another thinly veiled effort to make poor people look like welfare queens – and to make the Obama administration look like welfare-queen enablers. The vehicle this time was some government advertisements for food stamps. As a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times noted, more than 1/3 of those eligible for SNAP (food stamps) benefits are not receiving them. Furthermore, the program was originally pushed for by the grocery industry because it bolstered household consumption and shored up the retail economy. But none of that information was provided by “objective” host Cheryl Casone. She announced, “The government is now marketing entitlements.”
Not surprisingly, regular panelist Tracy Byrnes hated it. She got the first comment. “This is such an awful state of affairs,” she said. “We’ve seen almost a 46% increase in food stamp participation since President Obama has taken office. It is awful that we are promoting this notion of continual handouts. Why not promote, I don’t know, get out there, get a job and pay for it yourself. And let’s not forget, just ‘cause you have food stamps, doesn’t mean you’re going to make good food choices. You can go out and buy candy, even birthday cakes with these things, too, you know.”
Regular Wayne Rogers sneered, “I looked it up on the internet, what food stamps are, and when I looked up SNAP – that’s this program, you know, for nutrition… and what you see is SNAP has to do with rescuing dogs and cats in Houston, Texas. It makes about as much sense. So, I’m not sure where all these catchy phrases come from and why they are promoting it… The most outrageous point is, they’re taking taxpayer money and spending it to advertise – spending it to advertise - a program where they’re giving away taxpayer money… That’s the government gone berserk.”
Christian Dorsey was one of only two supporters on the panel. As usual, he was terrific. “Hopefully, this is destigmitizing something that doesn’t need to be stigmatized at all,” he said. He also pointed out, “In order to get food stamp benefits, you have to be working or looking for work, you have to be a dependent child, or you’re elderly, or disabled. None of those are shameful circumstances. The reason we’ve spent so much more on food stamps is because we had a really big recession where we increased poverty… This is a really efficient program. Low administrative costs, and money goes to people in need. They spend the money at private businesses, and that spending multiplies by at least 50% in economic activity.”
Instead of emphasizing the stimulative effect, host Casone turned to Jonathan Hoenig, who would almost certainly do away with food stamps altogether if he could. In a scary voice, she said, “Jonathan, this is a $75.3 billion program… It’s huge.”
Hoenig said that the fact that food stamps goes to people in need is “inherently the problem.” He added, “Government is not a charity. We’re talking… an average of $140 a month per recipient. That is essentially found money. To Wayne’s point, it gets taken from some citizens who’ve earned it, and given it to other citizens who’ve not… The ads really irk me, Cheryl, because they essentially legitimize the welfare state. They say… it’s OK for the government not only just to buy you food, but to tell you what to eat. It’s pathetic.”
John Layfield spoke up. “I certainly hope not… You can’t spend this for sugary drinks… These people have nothing else to eat if you don’t give them this. The problem is, that many people are in poverty.”
Hoenig said, “Look at Mississippi. One in five people there are on food stamps. It’s the fattest state in the nation 6 years running.”
”It’s also one of the poorest,” Layfield shot back.
Hoenig said, “Don’t tell me that we need food stamps to alleviate poverty when we have an obesity problem in this country.”
Obesity is linked to poverty, not wealth, as even the conservative Wall Street Journal noted. Also, it’s more difficult for the poor to eat healthfully. That was something else Casone either didn’t seem to know or didn’t bother to mention. She did, however question whether enough is being done to prevent fraud. “Do we need to kind of right the ship now” to reduce food stamps, she mused.
Byrnes got another chance to whine about the poor soaking the rich. “Under the Obama administration, …they’ve made it easier to qualify… The rules have lessened so more people fall into the welfare net. That is what’s so awful about this.”
Almost all the panel, especially Hoenig and Byrnes, are whiny ass 1%-defending morons. More phony tricks for their joke of a “business” block on Saturdays, which might be THE worst aspect of Fixed Noise.
On yesterday’s Cashin’ In, the panel discussed the all male boardroom at Facebook. Host Cheryl Casone announced that the nation’s second largest pension fund is pressuring Mark Zuckerberg to add women to the board. Panelist Tracy Byrnes not only didn’t want to help her female brethren, she suggested it was an insult. Regular panelist Jonathan Hoenig said so overtly.
When asked why she was against pressuring Facebook to add women, Byrnes said, “Because you sit on the board because you deserve it. You have the merit to do so, you are qualified to do so. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have a skirt on all day long, Cheryl. I would not at this point want to be handed anything as a woman. We worked too hard to prove how smart we really are. Don’t hand any woman a seat on that board unless she deserves it.”
Panelist Wayne Rogers said, “It’s a free market. You can buy the stock, or you can sell the stock… They can do whatever they want to… Zuckerberg can appoint whoever the hell he wants to, and he can say to them, Go fly a kite… Don’t buy my stock.’”
John Layfield was one of only two of the five panelists to argue against the all-male board. He said, “It is shameful to me that these tech companies – this is like a bunch of tech geeks build a tree house and put up a sign up that says, ‘No chicks allowed.’ …If you’re saying that the only people that are qualified are white males to be on that board, I have to disagree with that. This is the year 2011 (2012, John), and I think we should no longer discriminate on race or gender. I’m not for forcing women in, but I am for opening up opportunities that are not there in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street.”
Byrnes jumped in. “But we’re presuming he discriminated to begin with!”
Guest Christian Dorsey, a News Hounds Top Dog, said it would “make sense” from a PR perspective to put women on the board. “To suggest that there are no qualified women is a complete farce,” he said.
From the 02.11.2012 edition of FNC’s Cashin’ In:
That seemed to be too much for Byrnes. “Hey, hey, hey!” she said – although she essentially agreed with Hoenig in all respects other than his barnyard characterization.
Layfield had the best response. “That’s like saying barring Jackie Robinson was a private decision among private shareholders. Come on, it’s the year 2011 (2012, John). There are women that are qualified and they are being excluded.”