Posts tagged "Laura Ingraham"

Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative filmmaker and author charged this January with violating federal campaign finance laws, allegedly said that while he might eventually admit his guilt, he would initially plead innocent because it would give “him a window of opportunity to get his story out there.” Conservative media have been happy to lend him a hand in doing so.

In January, federal prosecutors announced that D’Souza was being charged with filtering excessive campaign donations through straw donors to Republican Wendy Long, a friend of his who lost her 2012 campaign to unseat Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. D’Souza pleaded not guilty to the charges.

According to The New York TimesD’Souza’s lawyer is claiming that the conservative pundit is being “targeted…because of his consistently caustic and highly publicized criticism” of President Obama. (The prosecution has called these claims “entirely without merit.”) The Times alsoreports that prosecutors claim to have a recording made by the husband of a woman D’Souza was “involved with romantically” who was “one of the alleged straw donors.” According to the woman, D’Souza said that if he were eventually charged, he might plead not guilty to help “get his story out there”:

Prosecutors also said they had obtained a copy of a recording made surreptitiously last October by the husband of a woman Mr. D’Souza was involved with romantically around the time of the donations, when Mr. D’Souza was separated from his wife. In making the recording, the husband was not acting at the government’s direction, prosecutors said. The woman, Denise Joseph, was one of the alleged straw donors.

Ms. Joseph was recorded as saying that Mr. D’Souza had told her that if he were charged he might plead guilty, but would initially plead not guilty because that “gives him a window of opportunity to get his story out there,” the government said. Ms. Joseph had no comment, her lawyer said.

Conservative media have been crucial in helping D’Souza “get his story out there” — his allies on Fox News, talk radio, and right-wing online outlets have loudly and repeatedly claimed that D’Souza is a victim of persecution because of his political beliefs.

The day after the indictment was announced, Matt Drudge tweeted that the charges against D’Souza and a former Republican Virginia Governor were evidence of Attorney General Eric Holder “unleashing the dogs” on “Obama critics.” Rush Limbaugh saw the case as proof the Justice Department was “trying to criminalize as many Republicans and conservatives as they can.” ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham announced on her radio show, ”we are criminalizing political dissent in the United States of America. Welcome to the Brave New World of retribution justice.”

Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones, in an alarmed video posted on Youtube with the title “Emergency: Obama Launches Purge,” called the situation “like Nazi Germany.”

Fox News, which has repeatedly hosted D’Souza since the indictment, reacted to the news by claiming ”the left are rediscovering their inner Stalin.” During an interview the week after the charges were announced, Hannity labeled D’Souza “the latest victim to be targeted by the Obama White House.” Fox Nation linked to Drudge’s conspiratorial tweet and a handful of other articles on conservative websites, asking their readers to “Sound Off” on whether there is a “COORDINATED, VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY.”

This conservative media narrative about the case has now become central to D’Souza’s defense. Per the Times, the trial is “about a month away.” 

h/t: Ben Dimiero at MMFA

Fox figures praised armed supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy as good, patriotic, hard-working Americans, ignoring their threats of violence against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents and indications that they were willing to put women in children in the line of fire.

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Refuses To Pay Grazing Fees, Resulting In Standoff With BLM

Los Angeles Times: Bundy Refused To Pay Grazing Fees For Use Of Federal Land.  As the Los Angeles Times reported on April 7:

Bundy is battling with federal officials over his cattle’s grazing on 150 square miles of scrub desert overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. He has refused to pay BLM grazing fees since 1993, arguing in court filings that his Mormon ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. His back fees exceed $300,000, he says. [Los Angeles Times4/7/14]

AP: Court Ordered Bundy To Pay Fees Or His Cattle Would Be Confiscated. Bundy refused to pay the fees he owed, and so the BLM attempted to carry out court orders to confiscate his cattle to settle the debt:

A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998. The bureau was implementing two federal court orders last year to remove Bundy’s cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court, Kornze said, adding the rancher has not paid grazing fees in 20 years. [Associated Press, 4/13/14]

AP: BLM Halted Cattle Confiscation After Armed Militias Showed Up To Protest. As the Associated Pressreported, after the Bureau of Land Management began confiscating Bundy’s cattle, armed  ”states’ rights protesters, including militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals’ return to rancher Cliven Bundy,” leading to the BLM’s decision to halt the confiscation:

Federal land managers say “escalating tensions” led them to release all 400 or so head of cattle rounded up on public land in southern Nevada from a rancher who has refused to recognize their authority.

Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze announced an abrupt halt to the weeklong roundup just hours before the release.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public," Kornze said in a statement. [Associated Press, 4/13/14]

Sen. Harry Reid Calls Armed Protestors “Domestic Terrorists”

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Sen. Reid Called Bundy's Armed Supporters “Domestic Terrorists.” At an event hosted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called armed protesters supporting Bundy ”domestic terrorists,” saying, “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots, are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal4/17/14]

Bundy Repeatedly Threatens Violence Against BLM Agents

Las Vegas Sun: Bundy Said He Would “Do Whatever It Takes” To Protect His Cattle. In 2013, Bundy told the Las Vegas Sun he would “do whatever it takes” to prevent the government from seizing his cattle:

[T]he rancher insists his cattle aren’t going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to “do whatever it takes” to defend his animals from seizure.

"I’ve got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."Bundy’s wife Carol told the Sun that she owns a shotgun and is prepared to use it:

Carol Bundy said her husband is not a violent man, just a person who will protect what he owns. For that matter, so is she.

"I’ve got a shotgun," she said. "It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion." [Las Vegas Sun9/23/13]

Bundy's Response To Question About Resorting To Violence: ”I Didn’t Say I Wouldn’t Carry A Gun.” On the April 10 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham asked Bundy whether he would resort to violence to settle the dispute:

INGRAHAM: When you said you would do quote “whatever it takes,” to stop the government from impounding your cattle, what did you mean by that? Did you mean you would resort to violence?

BUNDY: What I said was — I didn’t say I wouldn’t carry a gun. [The Laura Ingraham Show4/10/14, via Media Matters]

Fox Figures Praise “Patriotic” Bundy Supporters

Fox’s Earhardt: Bundy Supporters Are “Good, Hardworking Americans.” On the April 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Ainsley Earhardt expressed outrage at Sen. Harry Reid’s comments that Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists,” saying:

EARHARDT: And then the question this morning, the government’s reaction to all of this. They’re pulling guns on these individuals, on Harry Reid’s community. These are folks that live in Nevada, these are good, hardworking Americans. So they disagree and the government goes out there and pulls guns and now Harry Reid’s calling them terrorists? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/18/14]

Fox's Morris: Supporters Were “Protesting Peacefully.” In a later segment during the April 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Clayton Morris claimed that, “Suddenly people are there protesting peacefully, arguing against government intervention here … and all of these police and folks roll in with guns and sniper rifles pointing at them.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends4/18/14]

Fox’s Napolitano: Ranch Protesters ”Shows You The Resistance Of Patriotic Americans.” Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano and Bill O’Reilly discussed the Nevada standoff on the April 17 edition of The O’Reilly Factor. Both conceded that Bundy’s actions were illegal, yet Napolitano called his supporters “patriotic” and downplayed their threats of violence:

O’REILLY: But here’s the fact. The federal government sent more force in to handle Cliven Bundy’s cows than they did to Ukraine. Right, I mean we can’t even get binoculars over there for those people but we have all of this.

NAPOLITANO: It shows you the attitude of the federal government today, and it shows you the resistance of patriotic Americans — Americans whose voices were silenced at the scene by being moved three miles away. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor4/17/14]

Fox’s Starnes: Bundy Supporters Are “Law-Abiding” Patriots.  On the April 17 edition of Hannity, Fox contributor Todd Starnes told guest-host Eric Bolling, “The idea that you’ve got the Senate Majority Leader going out there and calling law-abiding American citizens — patriots — domestic terrorists for protesting against their government is beyond the pale.” [Fox News, Hannity4/17/14]

Fox Guest: Why Were Guns Pointed At “Hardworking Ranchers”? During the April 17 edition of Fox News’s The Kelly File, frequent Fox guest and conservative filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch demanded an explanation from Sen. Harry Reid as to why guns were pointed at “hardworking ranchers”:

LYNCH: That man [Sen. Reid], I want an explanation from him. I want to know why it is that I had M-16s pointed at my face. Why those M-16s were pointed at women and children and hardworking ranchers. I want an explanation. Because the more I keep on looking at my footage — that looked like Afghanistan. [Fox News, The Kelly File4/17/14]

Bundy Supporters Who Fox Praised Were Armed, Threatened Violence

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Armed Militia Members Mobilized For Armed Confrontation.The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on April 9 that armed militia members were joining Bundy in his standoff with the BLM:

From near and wide, armed men are trickling toward Cliven Bundy’s ranch, where the rancher’s fight with the federal government has become a rallying cry for militia groups across the United States.

[…]

They say they are prepared for armed confrontation, but they insist they will not be the instigators if bloodshed happens. [Las Vegas Review-Journal4/9/14]

Reuters: Many Supporters “Wore Military Fatigues And Carried Rifles And Pistols.” Reuters reported on April 17 that many of Bundy’s supporters carried rifles and pistols:

A number of Bundy supporters wore military fatigues and carried rifles and pistols and had traveled from California, Idaho, Arizona, Montana and beyond. Most kept their handguns holstered.

[Former Arizona sheriff Richard] Mack, who wore his gun on his hip, and other Bundy supporters interviewed by Reuters said they would not shoot first but would retaliate if fired upon. [Reuters, 4/17/14]

Review-Journal: "Serious Bloodshed Was Narrowly Avoided" At The Protest. The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported that:

On Wednesday, that dispute teetered at the edge of deadly conflict, when Cliven Bundy’s family members and supporters scuffled with rangers from the Bureau of Land Management sent to protect the federal roundup of Bundy’s cattle on public land. [Las Vegas Review-Journal4/9/14]

Huffington Post: Former Sheriff Wanted To Put “Women Up At The Front” If A Shootout Occurred. According to the Huffington Post, former Arizona sheriff and Bundy supporter Richard Mack proposed putting women on the front lines if a shootout with the BLM occurred and claimed he “would have put my own wife or daughters there”:

"We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front," he said on Fox News, according to TheBlaze.com. "If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers."

[…]

"If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot. I’m sorry, that sounds horrible. I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. [Huffington Post, 4/15/14]

Reuters: Bundy Supporter “Aimed His Semi-Automatic Rifle” At Federal Agents. On April 17, Reuters reported on the aftermath of the Bundy ranch protest, writing that during that during the standoff an armed protester aimed his gun at federal agents:

Flat on his belly in a sniper position, wearing a baseball cap and a flak jacket, a protester aimed his semi-automatic rifle from the edge of an overpass and waited as a crowd below stood its ground against U.S. federal agents in the Nevada desert. [Reuters, 4/17/14]

sniper

          Photo credit: Reuters/Jim Urquhart

KLAS-TV Las Vegas: Militia Man Joining Bundy Protest Said “We Provide Armed Response.” On April 10, a local Las Vegas news station KLAS-TV reported that one militia man coming to support Bundy said, “That is what we do. We provide armed response … We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.” [KLAS-TV Las Vegas, 4/10/14]

h/t: Olivia Marshall at MMFA
mediamattersforamerica

Poor Bill O’Reilly. His tender fee-fees were so hurt by a sign saying “Nobody died for our “sins” Jesus Christ is a myth” it’s threatening his whole Easter or his whole faith or something. And persecuted Christian Laura Ingraham is suffering right along with him!

Doesn’t this sound like grievance mongering?

O’REILLY: If you are in Madison, Wisconsin and you go to the Capitol Building, you may be very insulted this Holy Thursday.

O’REILLY: Fair minded people know that’s appalling.

INGRAHAM: Every Christian holiday, we see something like this.

O’REILLY: They want to hate and disparage people like you and me.

INGRAHAM: I am praying for the redemption of the nasty folks over at (Freedom From Religion Foundation). I don’t know if it will work or not.

O’REILLY: These people want to insult - and that’s what it is - it’s insulting. They want to insult people with whom they disagree. And there’s no reason for it.

INGRAHAM: The culture is already predominantly atheistic. …So, they have enormous power, I think, already in the culture that doesn’t address religion at all. But that’s not enough for them. They want to mock and demean. …This doesn’t surprise me at all. I expect this to happen. …Why is it always the Christians the only ones that get the mud slung at them? I don’t know why it’s just Christians.

So what do you think O’Reilly’s reaction would be if two African Americans had this discussion about being stopped and frisked by the police for no reason? I think we have a good idea.


H/T: Ellen at Newshounds.us

h/t: Kenneth Vogel and  Mackenzie Weinger at Politico

ABC host George Stephanopoulos announced on This Week that talk radio host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham is the network’s “newest contributor.” On her syndicated radio program The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham has repeatedly engaged in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, lobbing numerous attacks against everyone from President Obama to people who receive government assistance to her favorite target, immigrants.

Here are 10 hateful moments from Ingraham in the past year:

1. Ingraham Used A Gunshot Sound Effect To Cut Off A Replay Of Rep. John Lewis’ March On Washington Speech. During her coverage of the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington in August 2013, Ingraham criticized the event and its speakers, saying the goal “was to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King into a modern-day liberal agenda.” She then played a clip of a speech from Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who was the youngest speaker at the 1963 March on Washington, abruptly interrupting the playback of his comments with the sound of a loud gunshot. Following criticism of this sound effect, Ingraham defended her use of the gunshot sound, instead calling it a “blow up effect” and claiming that criticism of her using the sound effect on Lewis was an attempt “to crush free speech.”

2. “Hillary Clinton Should Be Absolutely Crucified For Her Lack Of Performance As Secretary Of State.” On her August 2, 2013, radio show, Ingraham lobbed attacks against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while discussing foreign policy, claiming that the rest of the world is “emboldened by Barack Obama’s weakness” and that Clinton “should be absolutely crucified for her lack of performance” as secretary of state.

3. Ingraham Repeatedly Mocked An Immigration Protestor For Speaking English With An Accent. In November 2013, Ingraham repeatedly mocked a woman who was protesting the Obama administration’s record number of deportations, saying, “Wait, what did she say at the end? I can’t — I need a translator. I speak Spanish too. I’d rather have her just speak Spanish, at least I’d understand that.” She then went on to affect the woman’s accent, stating, “No want more amnesty. No want more lies. No want more phony promises. No want more people coming into the country, filling up our schools and our emergency rooms, having anchor babies and then blaming us for it. No want more that.”

4. Ingraham Claimed Immigration From Mexico Would Turn U.S. Into A “Hellhole.” Ingraham used a May 2013 hearing on immigration reform to claim that immigration from Mexico would create a “hellhole” and a “mini-Mexico,” saying, “I think a lot of you look around at this culture of ours, and some of it is our own fault, but we see America disappearing. I’m not even talking about demographics, I’m talking about our culture.”

5. Ingraham Equated Negotiating With President Obama To Negotiating With Castro On Human Rights. While discussing immigration reform in August 2013, Ingraham claimed that Democrats wanted to a “forge a permanent majority in the U.S. government, which is what they wanted all along.” She continued, “Small government conservatives willing to sit down and forge a comprehensive deal with Barack Obama on immigration. I mean, if you’re willing to do that, you might as well be willing to sit down with Castro and talk about human rights, because he’s had such a great record on that.”

6. Ingraham: People Who Use Food Stamps Are The Next Hurricane Katrina “Roof Squatters.” While discussing the House of Representatives’ passage of the farm bill in July 2013, Ingraham lamented the number of people who use food stamps, saying, “44 million people sucking on the — of the government. You know, the udder of the government.” She went on to say of food stamp recipients, “The next thing you know, they’re going to be standing on the roof, waiting for the helicopters to rescue them, right, the roof squatters during Hurricane Katrina.”

7. Ingraham Threatened To Personally Primary Challenge Republicans Who Support Immigration Reform. In May and June of 2013, Ingraham launched a series of attacks against Republican politicians whom she perceived as supportive of immigration reform, going so far as to claim that she would “primary challenge [Arizona] Senator Jeff Flake [her]self.” She also stated that she would look into running against Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham for his immigration policies, saying, “people think I’m joking, I’m actually not joking,” and later asserted that she would campaign against any House Republican who supported comprehensive immigration reform.

8. Ingraham Smeared The American Children Of Undocumented Immigrants As “Anchor Fetuses.” Ingraham’s attacks against pro-immigration reform Republican politicians were accompanied by numerous smears against immigrants and Latinos, including referring to the American children of undocumented immigrants as “anchor fetuses” during a discussion about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “embrace of the path to citizenship” in May 2013.

9. Ingraham Compared Obama’s Immigration Policies To “Spousal Abuse.” Ingraham invoked a “spousal abuse” analogy in February to describe President Obama’s immigration policies, claiming, “The administration led by Barack Obama are abusers of our Constitution.”

10. “We Can Then Wall Off Detroit” If Immigrants Move There. In January, Ingraham derided Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s plan to attract skilled immigrants to work and live in bankrupt Detroit, saying, “we can then wall off Detroit” to keep those immigrants from moving to other parts of the country.

h/t: Hilary Tone at MMFA

imageMike Huckabee: How can Obama support same-sex marriage and call himself a Christian? (via Raw Story )

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) attacked President Barack Obama on Friday night over his support of same-sex marriage. Mediaite reported that Huckabee was appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor” with substitute host Laura Ingraham when he made…



 

Right-wing media are fanning the flames of a conflict between a federal agency and their new hero — a scofflaw Nevada rancher who’s threatening a violent range war against the federal government.

Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher in Nevada, has been fighting the government over grazing rights on public land for nearly a quarter century. In 1993, Bundy began refusing to pay government fees required to allow his cattle to exploit public lands. In 1998, the government issued a court order telling Bundy to remove his cows from the land, as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise located there. And in July 2013, a federal court ordered Bundy to get his cattle off public land within 45 days or they would be confiscated. The confiscation began this month, and the cattle will be sold to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes.

Conservative media have held the confiscation out as a big government invasion of private property rights and have repeatedly hyped the rancher and his family as victims being intimidated by a heavily armed force of federal agents who are escalating the situation into the realm of notorious and deadly standoffs like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Fox News hosted the rancher on the April 9 edition of Hannity, where Sean Hannity sympathized with Bundy’s claims against the government and argued that allowing Bundy’s cattle to graze on public lands “keeps the price of meat down for every American consumer.” 

Fox & Friends highlighted the situation and complained about the protections for the desert tortoise. Co-host Brian Kilmeade said, ”We’re not anti-turtle, but we are pro-logic and tradition.” 

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.com played up the fact that the federal agents confiscating Bundy’s cattle were armed. Alex Jones’ Infowars.com posited that the government was attempting to “enslave us in an [United Nations] Agenda 21 future where we have no property and no rights.” During an April 9 edition of Jones’ conspiracy theory radio show, Jones said of Bundy, “So your bottom line, like Paul Revere, you’re making your stand, you’re telling folks we’re being overrun by an out of control tyranny.”

National Review Online’s Kevin Williamson called the presence of armed agents “inflammatory” and described the government’s actions as a “siege.” The conservative American Thinker accused Attorney Gen. Eric Holder of enforcing the law against Bundy for racial reasons. 

But if anyone is waging a campaign of intimidation, it’s Bundy and his family, who have repeatedly threatened violence, invoked revolutionary rhetoric, and issued public statements making known that they own firearms and appear willing to use them.

The rancher told the Las Vegas Sun in 2013 that “he keeps firearms at his ranch” and promised to “do whatever it takes” to defend his cattle from being seized.

"I’ve got to protect my property," Bundy said as [his son] Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Bundy’s wife Carol told the Sun that she owns a shotgun and is prepared to use it.

Carol Bundy said her husband is not a violent man, just a person who will protect what he owns. For that matter, so is she.

"I’ve got a shotgun," she said. "It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion."

Grabbing another fistful of bacon, Arden said he wants to be part of any coming battle. His mother smiled.

When conservative radio host Laura Ingraham asked if he would resort to violence to settle the dispute, Bundy said, “I didn’t say I wouldn’t carry a gun.”

On Fox News’ Hannity, Bundy implied that the federal government’s seizure of his cattle amounted to an infringement on the rights of Nevada and said he’ll “do whatever it takes to gain our liberty and freedom back.”

BUNDY: Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They’ve closed all those things down, and we’re here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We’re after liberty.

HANNITY: How far are you willing to go? How far are you willing to take this?

BUNDY: My statement to the American people, I’ll do whatever it takes to gain our liberty and freedom back.

Appearing on the radio show of conspiracy theorist Pete Santilli, a 9-11 Truther who previously threatened to shoot Hillary Clinton, Bundy repeatedly said the time has come to “make our stand.” Discussing his situation’s relationship to the deadly Waco and Ruby Ridge standoffs, Bundy said, “I haven’t called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that’s where we’re at”:

BUNDY: I told you that I did the legal thing and the political thing and the media thing and it seems like it’s down to we the people if we’re going to get it done. You know the things like militias. You know, I haven’t called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that’s where we’re at.

We got a strong army here, we have to fight, their [unintelligible] to back off. We don’t have our state officials not stepping up and saying no. So until the state people steps up and says no, the county sheriff says no, this thing is going to keep escalating until the point that we are going to have to take our land back and take our rights back and maybe that’s the time we are at in life, I don’t know, it just seemed like we worked our way all the way to this point, now are we going to back off? Or are we going to take it — somebody is going to have to back off. If they’re not, we the people are going to put our boots down and we are going to walk over these people.

During his appearance on The Alex Jones Show, Bundy said that he tells the government he will “do whatever it takes” to oppose the government and because he “make[s] that statement, they seem to say well this man, he can’t stand. We’re gonna have to take him down.”

Jones and Bundy also discussed a since-delayed plan for the Bureau of Land Management to auction off Bundy’s confiscated cattle in Utah to repay his debts to the government. Bundy urged his supporters to “go in there with force” and to stop the auction. Jones said a confrontation at the auction “could be how the shot heard round the world happens in this case” and warned that “this could turn into 1776 very quickly,” garnering Bundy’s agreement: 

JONES: This could be how the shot heard round the world happens in this case or others that are happening. If they ever fire on innocent peaceful people trying to take stolen cattle and act like the mercenaries they are, this could turn into 1776 very quickly.

BUNDY: Yeah, and we’re totally disgusted with this type of government and I don’t think we the people are going to stand it, and I’m not going to stand it, I’m going to stand as long as it takes and do whatever it takes to get this —

JONES: Incredible, well we will get updates in the next few days, sir, to find out what unfolds.

Bundy may not have “called” any militia, but militias around the country are mobilizing to support him. And while the potential for violence continues to escalate, right-wing media keep egging him on.

h/t: Timohy Johnson and Brian Powell at MMFA

h/t: Catherine Thompson at TPM

crooksandliars:

Laura Ingraham Uses Crimea Invasion To Call For U.S. Border Control

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Sunday used the Russian invasion of Crimea to say that the United States should be focusing on stopping undocumented immigrants from coming across its border.

During a Fox News panel discussion on Crimea that included former deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz, Ingraham began by blasting the Iraq war, which he helped to orchestrate.

"Upwards or two trillion dollars in Iraq, right? We don’t have a lot to show for it," she said. "We are stumbling still in Afghanistan. The American people — we can talk about, we can do this and we can do that [to stop Russia]. And I understand that, I really do."

"But we have a country right now where people look around and say, why do we only care about borders and sovereignty when they’re other countries’ borders and sovereignty?" the frequent Fox News guest host added. "Why is it that we’re obsessed about that, but in our country, we have a middle class completely flat-lining, we have economic opportunity dwindling?"

Ingraham noted that she had supported the “military adventurism” in Iraq, but people now wanted to know, “Where’s the bang for the buck?”

"You can’t do this in the rearview mirror," Wolfowitz insisted.

"You got to learn from the past, Paul," Ingraham interrupted.

"One of the things to learn from the past, including the past of the 1930s, is if you don’t deter these sort of moves early, when you can do it without military force, you end up in wars," Wolfowitz replied. "And that’s what we’re trying to avoid here."

She’s wrong as usual. 

Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham launched an ignorant smear against Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, suggesting that she has to choose between her “immigrant family background” or the Constitution.

Ingraham’s smear is both rooted in the premise that immigrants are separate from mainstream American culture and is completely off the mark given the fact that Sotomayor is an American citizen and the daughter of American citizens.

In a February 3 speech before Yale Law students, Sotomayor commented on the fact that she was the first Supreme Court Justice to use the term “undocumented immigrant,” instead of “illegal alien,” saying “[t]o call them illegal aliens seemed and does seem insulting to me.”

Ingraham highlighted Sotomayor’s comment on her radio show the following day. Ingraham suggested that using the term “undocumented immigrant” demonstrated a failure of Sotomayor’s duty “to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.” According to Ingraham, the word choice shows that Sotomayor’s “allegiance obviously goes to her immigrant family background and not to the Constitution of the United States.”

Sotomayor is a Puerto Rican American who is both an American citizen and the daughter of American citizens. Puerto Ricans have had U.S. citizenship since President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act in 1917. Ingraham’s claim that Sotomayor’s heritage somehow conflicts with her mission to uphold the Constitution is both baseless and nonsensical.  

From the 02.04.2014 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show:

h/t: MMFA

Following the announcement Thursday that conservative commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has been charged with violating federal campaign finance laws, his allies are claiming that the move is evidence of a conspiracy by the Obama administration to silence its critics.

D’Souza has been a fixture in conservative media circles for years, and his laughable 2012 documentary 2016: Obama’s America became a surprise critical success thanks in part to the support of his media allies. Reuters reports that D’Souza ”has been indicted by a federal grand jury for arranging excessive campaign contributions to a candidate for the U.S. Senate,” allegedly reimbursing “people who he had directed to contribute $20,000” to the unnamed candidate (reportedly Wendy Long).

Matt Drudge tweeted that the indictments against D’Souza and former Republican Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell are evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder is “unleashing the dogs” on “Obama critics.”

In a panicked video headlined “Emergency: Obama Launches Purge” posted on his YouTube channel last night, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones told viewers that “America is going over the edge,” adding, “I actually am scared.” According to Jones, the charges against former Gov. McDonnell are “trumped up garbage” (for what it’s worth, conservatives like Byron York disagree, labeling the details “ugly, sordid, damning”).

Pointing to the supposed persecution of D’Souza, Jones claimed that the administration is engaged in much worse behavior and warned, “The issue is here, they can find a mistake in your checking account and claim that it was fraud or wire fraud. They can do it to anybody.” According to Jones, “this is like Nazi Germany” and “once they’re done with these guys, they’re coming after you and I.” 

The description posted on Jones’ YouTube channel explains that this is an “Emergency Alert!!!,” adding “This is it, we are in deep shit! If they get away with this they will come for all of us, that’s how it works!!!”

On her radio show this morning, Fox contributor Laura Ingraham claimed that “we are criminalizing political dissent in the United States of America. Welcome to the Brave New World of retribution justice.” Ingraham argued that D’Souza is one of the “most effective critics” of the Obama administration, and that the charges are “so transparent.” The indictment “is more about stifling political dissent and intimidating other people from speaking out than it is about any real serious allegation of wrongdoing,” per Ingraham. Ingraham is close friends with Wendy Long, and hosted a fundraiser for Long with D’Souza. 

An article on FoxNews.com includes the suggestion from a “close colleague” of D’Souza’s that the indictment is “selective prosecution” in the first sentence. The story is currently featured as the top story on the network’s website:

Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich tweeted:

Radio host and former GOP Rep. Joe Walsh saw a pattern with McDonnell’s indictment and Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s recent troubles:

And conservative website Newsmax labeled the charges “Payback” in a banner headline on their homepage:

h/t: MMFA

From the 01.09.2014 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show:

Conservative media viciously attacked Texas State Senator Wendy Davis after she announced her candidacy for governor, linking Davis to infanticide and calling an image of her with kids “sick” and “disgusting.” 

Fox News’ Michelle Malkin: “Abortion Extremist” Davis Sounds “Ghoulish,” Should Have Posed With “Gosnell Jars.” Fox contributor Michelle Malkin claimed that Davis sounded “ghoulish” when she had tweeted about “a better tomorrow” for Texans. Malkin later tweeted that instead of children in the photo, Davis should have been surrounded by convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell’s jars, which reportedly contained human remains.

Michelle Malkin tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Michelle Malkin Tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Fox News’ Katie Pavlich: Davis’ Photo Is “Sick” And “Disgusting.” Fox News contributor and Townhall editor Katie Pavlich smeared Davis as “famous for infanticide” on Twitter, calling the photo “sick”:

Katie Pavlich tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Katie Pavlich tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Fox News’ Erick Erickson: Davis Could “Abort” Campaign After 26 Weeks “With A Clear Conscience.”Following Davis’ official declaration of her candidacy for Texas governor, Fox contributor Erick Erickson tweeted:

 Erick Erickson tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor: Wendy Davis Is An “Aspiring Baby Killer.” Dan Gainor, vice president of Business and Culture for the conservative Media Research Center, tweeted of Davis’ announcement:

Dan Gainor tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

Gainor later tweeted:

Dan Gainor tweet[Twitter.com, 10/3/13]

National Review Online: “Abortion Barbie Enters The Race In Texas.” On the front page of its website, National Review Online (NRO) linked to an article on Davis’ announcement by declaring:

NRO Headline: Abortion Barbie[National Review Online, 10/4/13]

NRO later altered the frontpage teaser to read:

NRO Headline: Abortion Apologist[National Review Online, 10/4/13

Fox Figures Have Previously Targeted Davis For Supporting Women’s Reproductive Rights

Erickson Labeled Davis “Abortion Barbie.” In August, Fox contributor Erickson deemed Davis “Abortion Barbie” after The Weekly Standard linked legal abortion to the crimes of convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell when questioning Davis:

Erick Erickson tweet[Twitter.com, 8/6/13, via Media Matters]

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Asked Davis: “Which Kids That You See On The Playground Shouldn’t Be There?” After Davis’ filibuster in June, frequent O’Reilly Factor guest host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham tweeted to Davis, “Which kids that you see on the playground shouldn’t be there?”:

Laura Ingraham tweet

h/t: MMFA

Conservative media are turning to a 22-year-old letter signed by Coretta Scott King to accuse immigration reform activists of co-opting the civil rights movement. They deceptively argue that the letter proves Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta would have opposed the modern immigration reform movement.

In 1991, Coretta Scott King signed a letter addressed to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that urged him to reconsider a proposal to undercut penalties on companies that employed undocumented workers that were mandated by the 1986 immigration law. King, along with other members of the Black Leadership Forum — a coalition of leaders from some of the country’s preeminent African-American organizations at the time — wrote that they wanted an opportunity to study the effects such a repeal would have on African-American and Hispanic workers. The letter stated:

We are concerned, Senator Hatch, that your proposed remedy to the employer sanctions-based discrimination, namely, the elimination of employer sanctions, will cause another problem — the revival of the pre-1986 discrimination against black and brown U.S. and documented workers, in favor of cheap labor — the undocumented workers. This would undoubtedly exacerbate an already severe economic crisis in communities where there are large numbers of new immigrants.

The letter added: “With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls of the unemployed. Additionally, it would add to competition for scarce jobs and drive down wages.”

The Black Leadership Forum members were clear that their concerns were centered on discrimination — against minority workers and against immigrants. The letter said nothing about the larger illegal immigration issue. In fact, it didn’t even express disagreement with the 1986 immigration law — that law granted legal status and a pathway to citizenship to nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants — which would have been a clear indication that members were against reform. 

Instead they wrote that they were invested in “the elimination of the root causes of national origin discrimination under the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as well as discriminatory impact.” 

In a 1990 report on the law, the General Accounting Office found that “substantial” and “serious” national original discrimination was introduced as a result of the law, but that it was “not pervasive.” GAO wrote that it “believes many employers discriminated because the law’s verification system does not provide a simple or reliable method to verify job applicants’ eligibility to work.” That report formed the basis for a proposal by Hatch and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to eliminate employer sanctions. 

Conservative Media Use Letter To Attack Immigrant Rights’ Movement

Conservative media figures are using the Forum letter to claim that immigration reform activists are, as Breitbart.com put it, “trying to co-opt the civil rights messages of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to push immigration reform through Congress,” which “seem[s] to be directly contradicting the wishes of the late Dr. King and his wife, Coretta Scott King.” Breitbart.com went on to claim that “Coretta Scott King and other black community leaders argued that illegal immigration would have a devastating impact on the black community.”

On her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham echoed that claim, suggesting that immigration rights’ activists are conflating the civil rights movement with the immigration reform movement. She read from the letter to illustrate her point, adding, “So in 1991, Coretta Scott King was saying on the issue of amnesty what many of us are saying now.”

Ingraham went on to criticize those who spoke in favor of immigration reform at the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, accusing them of “ruining the moment.”

[…]

So was Coretta Scott King, and by extension Dr. King, anti-immigration reform? It is an obvious stretch to say so — especially if the only evidence put forth is this 1991 letter.

What undermines the theory even further is that in the letter, the Forum members expressed concerns about employers abusing undocumented workers. “[W]e are concerned that some who support the repeal of employer sanctions are using ‘discrimination’ as a guise for their desire to abuse undocumented workers and to introduce cheap labor into the U.S. workforce,” the members wrote.

That’s hardly a position you hear from the anti-immigrant crowd. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of what you hear. The Forum members’ concern for the plight of the undocumented worker is, if anything, an overriding argument for passing immigration reform that is invoked by supporters.

To be sure, while it is hard to know exactly what the Kings believed on the subject of immigration, there is a wealth of information available today that could inform on what their views might have been.

In her paper, “Civil Rights, Immigrants’ Rights, Human Rights: Lessons From The Life And Works Of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” University of California law professor Jennifer Chacón, who is an expert in immigration law and policy, attempted to do just that.

h/t: MMFA