From the April 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player ...
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto questioned the authenticity of a New York Times op-ed authored by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by claiming that the op-ed appeared online too quickly to have been written by someone "who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions."
Giffords' April 18 op-ed was written in response to the failure of expanded background checks legislation. On January 8, 2011, Giffords was shot in the head during a constituent meeting in an attack that killed six and left 13 wounded.
Taranto's comments occurred on the April 19 edition of the National Rifle Association's news show, Cam & Company, where he said it was "odd" that the Times op-ed, which Taranto described as "Giffords' personal reaction as somebody who's been wounded by gun violence," was published approximately five hours after the Senate voted on background checks. Taranto cast doubt on the idea that Giffords had authored the piece, commenting, "So we are supposed to believe that somehow in less than five hours a woman who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions was able to produce 900 publishable words and put in an appearance in the White House in the course of it."
From Cam & Company:
TARANTO: One fascinating thing about this is this piece was published no later than 9:03 PM on Wednesday evening, because that's when it first appears on the New York Times' Twitter feed. The last Senate vote on amendments to the gun bill was a bit after 6 [PM]. Giffords appeared at the White House at 5:35 [PM] when we saw that enraged rant by the president. The Manchin-Toomey [background check] provision was the first vote. That was at 4:04 PM. So if you read this piece it's presented as a cry from the heart, as Giffords' personal reaction as somebody who's been wounded by gun violence to the betrayal of these Senators. So we are supposed to believe that somehow in less than five hours a woman who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions was able to produce 900 publishable words and put in an appearance in the White House in the course of it. So I think that's a little bit odd.
Taranto offers no evidence for his offensive insinuation that Giffords would not have been capable of authoring the piece herself. He also ignores the possibility that Giffords could have authored the op-ed ahead of time in expectation of the widely-predicted outcome - hardly an unusual practice.
National Review Online misrepresented civil rights precedent to attack the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), continuing right-wing media's campaign against the validity of a long-standing civil rights doctrine that prohibits certain racial discrimination.
Right-wing media have repeatedly stated their intense dislike of the effective civil rights doctrine of "disparate impact" analysis, a type of anti-discrimination protection that can prohibit seemingly neutral law and policy that has a disproportionate effect on certain groups. For example, its use in the context of fair housing law on behalf of victims of color - unanimously recognized as legal by appellate courts - has been consistently attacked by both NRO and the Wall Street Journal, an attack that has shifted to the use of the doctrine by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, current Labor Secretary nominee.
In addition to fair housing, in which the doctrine has resulted in significant settlements from banks that engaged in predatory loaning and related discrimination, compliance with disparate impact law has also been identified as a way for the EPA to ameliorate environmental actions that have a disproportionate effect on communities of color. This "environmental justice" approach was recently criticized by NRO as "wacky," dubious," and "inconsistent" with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
[T]he Obama administration has taken the already-wacky concept of "environmental justice" to even-wackier extremes. The basic idea here is that whether pollution is illegal or not can depend on whether its possible victims reflect a politically correct racial balance.
Now EPA has made it "significantly easier for environmental groups to establish" a violation under this dubious approach to the law....And, what's still more, the whole approach is inconsistent with the underlying statute involved, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The argument by conservative media that former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and other survivors of gun violence who supported a failed Senate compromise to expand background checks on firearms sales are "props" of the Obama administration is both hypocritically partisan and logically flawed.
Right-wing media are unable to acknowledge that President Obama's gun violence prevention agenda mirrors the priorities of gun violence survivors, who are not mere "props," to pass stronger gun laws. As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post notes, "the families want to stand with the President at events for a fairly obvious reason: Obama is fighting for the same things they want":
All of this aside, the "props" line is actually an insult to the families, posing as a defense of them. It implies that the families, in lobbying on these issues, are not thinking for themselves. In reality, the families want to stand with the President at events for a fairly obvious reason: Obama is fighting for the same things they want. Indeed, one of the family members, Mark Barden, who lost his son Daniel in the shooting, voluntarily stood with the president at the White House yesterday as Obama reacted to news of the Senate vote, and thanked Obama for his leadership. Needless to say, if Barden felt like he was being exploited or used as a prop, he wouldn't be thanking the president. [emphasis in original]
Logical flaws aside, those who would call Newtown families and other gun violence survivors "props" fail to acknowledge that presidents routinely evoke the experiences of victims in advocating for policies that would prevent future tragedies.
In 1991, former President Ronald Reagan evoked his own experience of being shot by a would-be assassin, as well as the experiences of others wounded in the 1981 attack in order to advocate for background checks on gun sales. In a New York Times op-ed Reagan wrote about his press secretary, Jim Brady, who was grievously wounded in the attack by a man who acquired a gun despite a lengthy history of serious mental illness. Brady would go on to lend his name to the legislation -- the Brady bill -- that mandated a background check for gun sales conducted by licensed dealers:
From the April 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Loading the player ...
Right-wing media used a straw man argument to defend the Republican-led filibuster of a gun violence prevention bill, claiming that the legislation wouldn't have stopped the massacre at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, and ignoring that there are approximately 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year.
On April 17, the U.S. Senate rejected gun violence prevention legislation that included a compromise amendment to expand background checks crafted by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (WV) and Republican Senator Pat Toomey (PA).
An April 17 Wall Street Journal editorial dismissed the defeated bill as "a liberal wish-list that wouldn't have stopped the next mass murder." Likewise, Breitbart.com featured two blog posts that claimed that gun violence prevention legislation would not have stopped the school shooting in Newtown. In one of these posts, Breitbart.com went so far as to accuse President Obama of throwing a "tantrum" after the vote, saying that "he used the Newtown disaster--or, in the eyes of many critics, exploited it--to make an argument about the urgent need for new laws, even if such laws would not have prevented the Newtown atrocity itself."
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer made similar comments on the April 17 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, saying that the proposal was "irrelevant" and "would not have" stopped the Newtown shooting:
KRAUTHAMMER: The question is, would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you're going to make all of these emotional appeals -- you saying you're betraying the families, you've got to show how if this had been law it would have stopped Newtown. It would not have. It is irrelevant.
Fox contributor Laura Ingraham went even further on the April 18 edition of her radio show, dismissing the bill by claiming that "criminals will be criminals":
INGRAHAM: The real things we can do to stop violent crime, we can actually have an economy that spins off jobs, have policies that don't encourage more lawlessness in our inner cities. Encourage families to stay together, fathers to stay with their, you know, the mothers of their children. All of these things. I mean we have a cultural and moral collapse in our society. You see it in many ways and many iterations of it. But we're supposed to believe that if only these background checks were in place, all -- Newtown wouldn't have happened, Aurora wouldn't have happened, Gabby Giffords wouldn't have been shot, none of this would have happened.
As Newtown parent Mark Barden explained in his April 17 statement at a White House press event, the argument that background checks would not have prevented the Newtown shooting is irrelevant, because the legislation's purpose was to save lives in the future:
Expanded background checks wouldn't have saved our loved ones, but still we came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with "A" ratings from the NRA -- a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans. It's a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
Conservatives in media gloated and launched political attacks in reaction to a coalition of largely Senate Republicans blocking a package of stronger gun laws, including compromise legislation on expanded background checks for gun sales -- a legislative proposal supported by roughly 90 percent of Americans.
Before, during, and after President Obama delivered a speech from the Rose Garden on April 17 vowing to continue the dialogue on gun laws, conservatives in media offered triumphal comments and launched vicious attacks on advocates for gun violence prevention, including family members of Newtown victims and former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
As Politico noted, conservative bloggers "claimed victory ... saying that their ideology and principles were the keys to their success." The right-wing reaction, however, went beyond basic policy arguments:
In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro opined that family members of Newtown victims -- many of whom advocated for the passage of stronger gun laws -- did not deserve to be heard because of his apparent belief that background checks infringe on the Second Amendment. Shapiro previously accused Obama of attempting to implement socialism in a piece for The New American, the magazine publication of the far-right John Birch Society. From Shapiro's April 18 op-ed:
I don't believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.
It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in "common use" were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.
When confronted with the fact that a majority of the nation's gun owners support expanded background checks for gun purchases, Fox anchor Bret Baier hid behind the National Rifle Association (NRA) to allege that such support does not exist.
The NRA has lobbied aggressively against a bipartisan proposal in the Senate that would have expanded background checks on gun show and online gun purchases. Among other efforts, they spent $500,00 in one day -- the day the Senate voted on the bill -- on ads calling the proposal "Obama's gun ban," according to the New York Times.
The background check proposal failed to pass the Senate, a result Fox contributor Juan Williams lamented on Special Report, stressing how even "gun owners say, 'Yes, it's a good thing' ":
WILLIAMS: It's like a tragedy ... the U.S. Senate can't take action on simple background checks that overwhelmingly the American people, in poll after poll, say that it's a good idea, it would be a good thing. Gun owners say, 'Yes, it's a good thing.' But again, the power of big money, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers has carried the day. So let's look at the record then--
BAIER: Well, hold on. Gun owners overall don't say that. You mentioned the NRA. They say this. (emphasis added)
Baier then read the NRA's statement opposing the Senate bill, which asserts that "[e]xpanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in schools."
Despite Baier's claim, the NRA's view are contrary to that of the majority of gun owners on this issue. In February 2013, the Pew Research Center determined that gun owners overwhelmingly support expanded background checks. Pew found the number to be:
The vast majority of gun owners have repeatedly expressed their approval of more background checks. At the beginning of the year, a Quinnipiac University poll showed 91 percent of gun owners were in support; in March, they found that number to be little changed, with 85 percent of gun owners in favor of universal background checks.
From the April 17 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:
Loading the player ...
Right-wing media have a long history of leveling charges of anti-white bias at President Obama's nominees and appointees of color, smears that have now formed the basis of Republican attacks on Labor Secretary nominee Thomas E. Perez.
From the April 17 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player ...
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent claimed the heroic response to the Boston Marathon bombings "represents" the NRA before attacking the "anti-Americanism" of the Obama administration for allegedly seeking to eliminate the Second Amendment.
Nugent's comments occurred during the April 16 broadcast of NRA News where he described the heroics of people who ran towards the scene of the bombings before claiming "that represents what the NRA is":
NUGENT: Those uniformed heroes of the military charged in with the uniformed heroes of law enforcement, the first responders, the EMTs, and quite relative to my opening statement today, citizens, just people, American citizens knowing that two bombs had gone off, limbs had been blown off of peoples' bodies, massive amounts of blood and terror and trauma. And where did civilians and heroes of professional organizations and law enforcement and military, where did they run? Straight into the danger. That's the America that I pray every day that represents what the NRA is.
Nugent then said that Americans "will charge into the most dangerous times when the top officials in the American government really want to eliminate the Second Amendment" and claimed that "anti-Americanism" exists in the Obama administration:
NUGENT: It's families, it's mom and pop America, working hard playing hard America who understand what makes America special and unique that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the guiding light to the greatest quality of life in the history of the world and we will charge into the most dangerous times when the top officials in the American government really want to eliminate the Second Amendment, when [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] says I would take away all of their guns if I could. She said it on film, Cam.
CAM EDWARDS, HOST: Yeah.
NUGENT: Where the Attorney General [Eric Holder] says we need to brainwash people. I know that that kind of anti-Americanism exists, but why can't we communicate with those who we oppose on the gun control issue, on the tax issue, on the court system, on the welfare issue, ad nauseum? Why can't we somehow, and I believe we can if we continue to communicate and turn up our activism heat, why can't we create an America that is united constantly like we're united when terror strikes?
Nugent's use of the heroics of the Boston Marathon bombing as a platform to attack the Obama administration comes a week after he said on NRA News that not enough was done to stop the reelection of President Obama before asking, "When I kick the door down in the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody?" Nugent clarified that his reference to shooting people was "a metaphor" and that he was "not recommending shooting anybody."
Wall Street Journal columnist Allysia Finley smeared "legal legend" federal Judge Thelton Henderson, the Department of Justice's first African-American civil rights attorney, and ignored Supreme Court precedent in order to attack a recent court ruling that re-affirmed California's prisons are unconstitutionally overcrowded.
On April 11, a three judge panel issued a "blistering" opinion that denied California's most recent request to be released from its court-ordered obligations to reduce unconstitutional overcrowding in its prison system, and warned the state it would be found in contempt if it continued to delay its compliance. The panel included Henderson, the judge who the state deferred to in the original class-action suit. From the WSJ, which characterized Judge Henderson as "dangerous to the constitutional system of checks and balances," Finley wrote:
Judge Henderson is perhaps best known for his infamous decision in 1996 to block California's Prop. 209, a voter approved-initiative banning affirmative action in state government and institutions, on the pretext that the ballot measure was discriminatory and likely unconstitutional.
Judge Henderson boasted to the San Jose Mercury last year that the Prop. 209 opinion was "probably as careful a decision as I've ever drawn up."
That sets a low bar for assessing a 2006 Henderson decision which held that sub-standard medical care in California prisons violated the 8th amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
When [Governor Jerry] Brown suggested he would appeal the panel's court order to the Supreme Court, Judge Henderson and his liberal peers on the panel (also appointed by Mr. [Jimmy] Carter) threatened to hold him in contempt and dun the state.
Mr. Brown has in the past favored using the courts to redress social inequities, but perhaps his judicial thinking will evolve after getting mugged by liberal judges and the plaintiffs bar.
Although right-wing media have largely claimed that gun violence prevention proposals would have no effect on the incidence of mass shootings, the six-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre highlights how deficient gun laws facilitate the epidemic of gunfire that claims roughly 30,000 American lives each year.
Conservatives in media have suggested that proposals being considered by the Senate to reduce firearm-related violence do not address mass shootings or gun violence generally and even denied that the proposal addresses the mental health issue at all.
However, gun violence prevention legislation under consideration by the Senate would address circumstances that facilitated the Virginia Tech massacre, one of the deadliest school shootings in United States history, which involved the sale of firearms to an individual prohibited by law from owning guns because of a mental health problem.
The Virginia Tech shootings, where 49 individuals were shot in a dormitory and academic building resulting in 32 fatalities, called attention to the fact that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) does not contain complete records of individuals prohibited under federal law from buying a firearm.
Along with felons, fugitives from justice, domestic abusers and other categories of prohibited persons, it is unlawful for an individual with mental health problems who is a danger to themselves or others to purchase a firearm. Roughly 16 months before the Virginia Tech massacre, shooter Seung-Hui Cho had been adjudicated by a judge to be "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." This record should have been forwarded to the NICS system and created a disqualifying record for Cho, but instead he was able to obtain firearms after passing background checks on at least two separate occasions.
In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to provide funding for states to ensure that disqualifying records were forwarded to NICS. Between 2009 and 2011, however, Congress only appropriated 5.3 percent of the authorized funding to improve NICS. Provisions in both the current Senate gun violence prevention package and the Toomey-Manchin proposal would offer states additional incentives in the form of increased funding and disincentives through funding cuts to submit disqualifying records into NICS.
According to a report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, millions of records are missing from NICS. While the overall number of records submitted to NICS has increased, MAIG found that as of October 31, 2011, "Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database. Seventeen states have submitted fewer than ten mental health records, and four states have not submitted any records."
The Los Angeles Times editorial board misleadingly suggested a proposed California anti-discrimination bill that would affect the Boy Scouts of America because of its anti-LGBT policy was not only unfair, but unconstitutional.
On April 10, the Los Angeles Times announced it was opposed to a new California bill that would deny a state sales and use tax exemption to any public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of "gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation," thereby aligning the conditions of this exemption with other state anti-discrimination law and policy. Because the government subsidy at issue is used by the Boy Scouts of America, the LAT correctly observed that its policy of discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation would run afoul of the proposed Youth Equality Act. The editorial board questioned whether the Boy Scouts "should be singled out from other nonprofits" and suggested this was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent that allows the Boy Scouts to ban LGBT members because of the group's "expressive message." From the editorial:
Under [The Youth Equality Act (SB 323)], carried by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), the Boy Scouts of America (though unnamed in the bill) would have to pay state sales taxes as well as taxes on any money it raised in California -- such as the proceeds from hawking caramel corn, Christmas trees or anything else -- unless it admitted boys who are gay or transgender.
The aims of the bill are understandable and even laudable. But the Scouts' membership policy has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2000 ruled 5 to 4 that the ban on gay members is protected under the Constitution because the group's opposition to homosexuality is part of its "expressive message."
We yearn for the day when the closed-minded leaders of the Boy Scouts join the 21st century, but we also worry about the implications of SB 323. If legislators can go after the Scouts for engaging in legal (though offensive) behavior, what group will they go after next?