The Laura Ingraham Show

Tags ››› The Laura Ingraham Show
  • Laura Ingraham: "Who’s Been More Detailed On Policy Proposals, By The Way, Than Trump?"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Discussing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's child care plan, radio host Laura Ingraham asked, “Who’s been more detailed in policy proposals, by the way, than Trump? Whatever you think about these proposals, they're darn specific.” In fact, an Associated Press analysis has found that “By any measure, Clinton has released far more specific plans on far more topics than her GOP rival.” Others in media have also pointed out the lack of specifics and incoherence in Trump’s economic and foreign policies. From the September 14 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show:

    LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): So [Trump] proposed these new federal subsidies for child care, including tax deductions and rebates for lower income households, and tax-preferred savings accounts, as well as a promise of paid maternity leave for workers who don’t have it. Not all workers, but workers at a certain income level. "The proposal is the latest move by the Republican presidential nominee to build up a policy agenda that has been short on details.” Who’s been more detailed in policy proposals, by the way, than Trump? Whatever you think about these proposals, they're darn specific. And meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s nowhere to be found. 

  • This Is How Trump’s Closest Advisers Have Talked About Immigrants And Latinos

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE & CRISTINA LOPEZ

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is planning to deliver a speech focused on immigration on August 31. The supporters and hangers-on surrounding Trump -- who would likely have his ear were he elected to the presidency -- include Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Roger Ailes. Here's what you need to know about their background on immigration and Latinos:

    Ann Coulter

    Commentator Ann Coulter's Anti-Immigrant Book Adios, America Is A Series Of Recycled Nativist Talking Points. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has credited white nationalist website VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow with inspiring her 2015 book Adios, America. In fact, many of the ideas presented in the book -- including her claim that immigrants “intentionally” set fires and litter -- appear to be closely modeled on those of white nationalist and anti-immigrant extremist movements in America. [Media Matters, 6/16/15]

    Coulter: Hispanics Will "Start Physically Attacking Blacks." While promoting her anti-immigrant book, Coulter complained about Hispanic immigrants and the "browning of America," predicting that "Hispanic groups will move into neighborhoods and say, 'We don't want any blacks here,' and start physically attacking blacks." [The Daily Beast, 5/26/15]

    Coulter: Americans Should Fear Immigrants More Than ISIS. Coulter has compared immigrants to terrorists from the Islamic State. During a May 26, 2015, interview on Fusion's America With Jorge Ramos, Coulter replied "yes" when host Jorge Ramos asked her about her assertion that Americans should fear immigrants more than the terror group. Coulter doubled down by saying, "If you don't want to be killed by ISIS, don't go to Syria. If you don't want to be killed by a Mexican, there's nothing I can tell you." [Fusion, America With Jorge Ramos, 5/26/15]

    Coulter: "'Real' Hispanics Are On Welfare." Coulter wrote that “"real" Hispanics, unlike Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), “are on welfare” in a May 2013 tweet:

    [Twitter, 5/6/13]

    Coulter Rejected A Hug From An Undocumented Immigrant. During a May 26 interview on Fusion's America with Jorge Ramos, Coulter refused to hug undocumented immigrant and DREAM Act activist Gaby Pacheco even when Pacheco persisted, saying the hug would be "a sign of my humanity and yours." [Media Matters, 5/29/15]

    Sean Hannity

    Sean Hannity Hosted A Town Hall Focused On Anti-Immigrant Fearmongering For Trump. Fox News host Sean Hannity dedicated two hours of his prime-time  show -- on August 23 and 24 -- to host an immigration town hall for Trump. The town hall served as an anti-immigrant bashing platform during which Hannity misinformed on crime and immigration,and fearmongered about the “absolutely staggering” effects that undocumented immigration has on the U.S.:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): We have decided tonight to go in depth on the direct impact they are having on you, the American people. And tonight you're going to hear heartbreaking stories from just some of the many, many family members whose loved ones were victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and tomorrow we'll be joined by law enforcement experts.

    Now, to put it simply, the effects that illegal immigration is having on our country is absolutely staggering.

    [...]

    Tonight is about the truth. This is truth you will not hear from The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, certainly not CNN, the Clinton news network. [Fox News, Hannity, 8/23/16]

    Hannity Defended Trump’s Attacks On Federal Judge’s Ethnicity. Hannity defended Trump’s claim that the judge presiding over the Trump University lawsuit could not be impartial because he is Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. And Hannity doubled down on the attacks on the Mexican-American judge by saying that Trump was “rightfully calling out the fact that there is a conflict of interest” From the June 3 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let me start by saying something else that needs to be said here. Towards the end of Hannity last night, we started the program, we covered a little bit of Donald Trump speaking in San Jose. Then I had a fight with Geraldo Rivera on the program over the issue of immigration and Donald Trump, I think, rightfully calling out the fact that there is a conflict of interest, the judge in the Trump University case. Remember nobody in the media covers the Laureate college case where Bill Clinton got paid $16-some-odd million, and many students from many poor countries feel like they were defrauded and that fraud has been committed against them. There's not one word about it in the media. Anyway, the judge in this particular case we found out is a member of the La Raza -- the race -- lawyers group. Remember La Raza? That's separate from the group that we hear about often, the advocacy group. But the word La Raza means "the race." So that's an indication that this guy might have radical views. Then we know that it came to light that the law firm, Robbins-Geller, appointed by the judge, Curiel, in this case to represent a plaintiff in the Trump University class action lawsuit. Well that law firm appointed by the judge, well they have a connection to Hillary Clinton in a couple of ways. One, they gave a $2,700 campaign contribution, at least the chairman Darren Robbins did. And it seems that Robbins-Geller paid the Clintons nearly a half a million dollars in less than a year in giving them paid speeches. Now I don't think I'd want a judge with those type of connections to that law firm presiding over a case that I'm involved in. And if that's not a strong case for a recusal, I don't know what is. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 6/3/16]

    Hannity: "I Agree With Mr. Trump” That Mexicans Are Criminals. Hannity defended Trump’s assertion that Mexico is sending “rapists” and “criminals” to the U.S. during a June 29, 2015, panel discussion. Hannity said, "I agree with Mr. Trump. As somebody who has been down to the border 11 times, I have seen the drug warehouses, I was there when criminals were arrested, I know the human trafficking side and the impact on our educational system, criminal justice system, et cetera --  our health care system." [Fox News, Hannity, 6/29/15]

    Steve Bannon

    Steve Bannon’s Fringe Website Breitbart News Consistently Uses Anti-Immigrant Slurs. Before joining the Trump campaign, Steve Bannon was the executive chairman of the 'alt-right' website Breitbart News, which  consistently uses headlines that denigrate undocumented immigrants. For example: “Report: More Than 925,000 Illegals with Final Deportation Remain in the U.S.,” “Report: Illegals Rushing to get into U.S. Before Trump Wall,” “Rape Deniers: 9 Facts About Illegal Alien Crime The Media Covers Up,” and “San Francisco Moves to Open Voting to Illegals.” [Media Matters, 8/18/16]

    Breitbart News Defended Trump’s Attacks On Federal Judge’s Ethnicity: Trump “Is Correct” To Question Judge Curiel’s Impartiality Based On His Mexican Heritage. Bannon’s website defended Trump’s racist attack against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University fraud case, agreeing that Curiel’s “Latino identity politics” would prevent him from being impartial. The article also attempted to falsely cast La Raza Lawyers association, of which Curiel is a member, as racist. From the June 6 article:

    Trump had questioned the impartiality of a federal judge.

    The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”

    “[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

    Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a (sic) legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

    Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered. [Breitbart News, 6/6/16]

    Laura Ingraham

    Laura Ingraham Didn’t Think Puerto Ricans Were American Citizens. In 2014, radio host Laura Ingraham launched an ignorant smear against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, suggesting that her “immigrant family background” and her Puerto Rican-American heritage conflict with her “allegiance … to the Constitution.” Ingraham said Sotomayor's "allegiance obviously goes to her immigrant family background and not to the Constitution of the United States,” but 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. [Media Matters, 2/4/14]

    Ingraham Mocked Prominent Hispanic Journalist José Díaz-Balart For Speaking Spanish. Ingraham  attacked prominent Telemundo journalist José Díaz-Balart for translating for a Spanish-speaking guest on his show. [Media Matters, 9/23/14]

    Ingraham: Mexicans "Have Come Here To Murder And Rape Our People." Ingraham echoed Trump’s claim that Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, saying Mexicans “have come here to murder and rape our people. We know that.” From the March 4 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show:

    CALLER: My thing about Trump is that, the thing is, he's not a polished person and I think people catch him off guard a lot. Like with the question with David Duke, I think simply he did not remember who David Duke was at the moment, and I think that caught him off-guard. I mean, obviously like if the reporter said, "Hey, you know, David Duke, the KKK member endorsed you." He probably would have said, "Well absolutely not." And the, see, thing about the Mexicans and murderers and rapists, everybody knows --

    LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Well, they have come here. They have. Yeah, they have come here to murder and rape our people. We know that. That doesn't mean everybody has, doesn't mean everyone who comes across the border is a nasty, horrible person, but they have violated our laws. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 3/4/16]

    Ingraham On Immigrants: "Nobody Has A Right To Be Here Except The People Who Are Born Here." Ingraham said of immigrants, “Nobody has a right to be here except the people who are born here.” From the March 22 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group’s The Laura Ingraham Show:

    LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Donald Trump this morning was on Fox News talking about what the responsibilities of the U.S. government is today with keeping the border secure, locking it down. Those who come into the country, that are allowed to be here -- it's a privilege to come into the United States. It's not a right. Nobody has a right to be here except the people who are born here. Nobody has a right to come here. And somehow we've become the depository of radicals and wannabe Islamists who believe they can come here, meld into society, and then complain about society. Or worse, plan attacks against society. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 3/22/16]

    Roger Stone

    Roger Stone Attacked CNN Pundit For Her Ethnicity, Saying It Was The Only Reason She Was On Air. On Twitter, Trump ally Roger Stone criticized CNN commentator Ana Navarro by writing that “Black beans and rice didn't miss her.” He later doubled down on his comments on the June 6 edition of WBUR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook, by saying that her ethnicity is the only reason Navarro was hired by CNN:

    TOM ASHBROOK (HOST): Don’t we have to have some level of mutual respect to keep this project going? You famously have tweeted after CNN anchors and guests, they’re “moron,” “retarded,” called them “stupid negro,” “fat negro.” Even in your own expression, that seems outside the realm of openness to unity that surely we need.

    ROGER STONE: Well I would have to admit that calling Roland Martin a fat negro, that was a two martini tweet. And I regret that. I really do. I think it was inappropriate and I’m sorry I did it. As for my criticism of Ana Navarro of CNN as being unqualified for her job, having never actually elected anybody or ever actually worked on a campaign  --

    ASHBROOK: "Black beans and rice didn't miss her"? That sounds like a slur on ethnicity.

    STONE: Well, why else is she there? It's not on the basis of experience or expertise, so maybe to put it more delicately, you'd call it casting, but I don't understand why she's there given her lack of qualifications. [WBUR, On Point with Tom Ashbrook6/6/16]

    Roger Ailes

    Former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Reportedly Said Navy SEALs Should "Have To Personally Kill An Illegal Immigrant" As Part Of Certification. New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman wrote in his biography of Roger Ailes, The Loudest Voice in the Room, that while Ailes has "been careful to moderate his immigration position in public," he nonetheless harbors appalling views on the subject. Sherman wrote that Ailes once said that Navy SEALs should "have to personally kill an illegal immigrant" as part of their certification:

    Ailes said that if he were president, he would solve the immigration problem by sitting the president of Mexico down and giving him a stern talking-to: "Your country is corrupt. You can now only take thirty percent of what the people earn instead of seventy percent. If you don't do that, I'll send the CIA down there to kill you." He had been careful to moderate his immigration position in public. "If I'm going to risk my life to run over the fence to get into America, I want to win. I think Fox News will articulate that," he told The New Republic a few months earlier. But Ailes told [Philipstown, NY supervisor Richard] Shea that as president he would send Navy SEAL trainees to the border as part of a certification program: "I would make it a requirement that you would have to personally kill an illegal immigrant coming into the country. They would have to bring home a dead body."  [The Loudest Voice in the Room, page 392, via Media Matters, 7/20/16]

  • Myths & Facts: $400 Million Payment To Iran

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Right-wing media are distorting a new report in The Wall Street Journal detailing a payment of $400 million from the United States government to the Iranian government to resolve an arms sale dispute dating to 1981. Conservative outlets are suggesting the payment “was definitely ransom” paid for American prisoners held in Iran, claiming “the administration did not reveal this to the public,” suggesting that Hillary Clinton was wrong to say the report is “old news,” and that airlifting cash to make the payment was essentially “money laundering.” But past reporting and explanations from the administration reveal “no concrete evidence that the cash payment was, in fact, a ransom,” that many of the details of the payments were made public in January, Clinton correctly noted the payment has been public for “seven or eight months,” and making the payment in cash was the only way to legally do it due to economic sanctions against Iran.

  • What Attacks On Bilingual Education Get Wrong

    ››› ››› PAM VOGEL

    Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham has spent months repeatedly issuing xenophobic rants against the perceived dangers of bilingual education in U.S. schools, asserting that teaching students in more than one language -- in particular immigrant students whose home language is Spanish -- somehow contributes to a decline in school quality at a high cost. But Ingraham’s claims about dual-language learning ignore the wide body of research showing that fostering bilingualism and multilingualism in schools and teaching students in their home language as well as English can have lasting positive impacts for individuals and for the economy.

  • Trump, Right-Wing Media In Sync With Conspiracy Theories Over FBI Referral On Clinton Email Server

    ››› ››› BRENNAN SUEN & BOBBY LEWIS

    After FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI has concluded its investigation into the private email server Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state and recommended no criminal charges be filed, right-wing media figures and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pushed baseless conspiracy theories, including suggesting that the timing of the event was linked to Clinton’s campaign appearance with President Obama later that day.

  • Conservatives Lose Their Excuse To Question The Results Of The Clinton Email Investigation

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY, CYDNEY HARGIS & NICK FERNANDEZ

    Conservatives have just lost their excuse to question the results of the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton’s email server, which legal experts say lacks a “legitimate basis” to charge Clinton with crimes. Right-wing media figures have ignored those experts to suggest that if the investigation does not result in a Clinton indictment, it must be politically tainted. But Attorney General Loretta Lynch affirmed that she will “be accepting the recommendations” made by “career agents and investigators” and FBI Director James Comey in the case, and conservative media have spent months lauding Comey’s “impeccable integrity” and ability to impartially conduct the investigation.

  • Right-Wing Media Abandon Facts To Support Trump’s Call For Waterboarding

    ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Several right-wing media figures defended presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s reiterated call for waterboarding and “much worse” techniques to combat terror after terrorists carried out an attack on Istanbul’s largest airport. Journalists and others well-versed in national security, terrorism, and interrogation tactics have called waterboarding ineffective and chided Trump for proposing we “stoop to [terrorists’] level” of using brutal tactics.

  • Three Things Right-Wing Media Still Don’t Understand About Affirmative Action In Education
     

    Blog ››› ››› PAM VOGEL

    Right-wing media figures are shocked by the Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas II, which reaffirmed that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Conservative media have been questioning the validity of affirmative action policies for years, appearing equally baffled by the Supreme Court’s decision in 2013 on the same matter. This time around, the confusion was again amplified as right-wing media attempted to cast race-conscious college admissions as “racist,” misrepresent the strict legal scrutiny already in place for these types of policies, and dismiss the numerous educational and economic benefits of diverse colleges.

    Research On Educational Benefits Of Diversity Is “Overwhelming” And “Compelling”

    On his radio show immediately following the release of the new Fisher decision, host Rush Limbaugh read from the synopsis of the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, in particular focusing on a line stating that schools have a “compelling interest” to seek the benefits of a diverse student body through means other than impermissible racial quotas. Limbaugh was so baffled by the “stunning,” “unbelievable,” and “absurd” reasoning, he had to read the line several times and was left speechless, before exclaiming, “This is so bad, I don’t know how to describe it.” Limbaugh then labeled the numerous and proven educational benefits of student body diversity a “liberal concept, perverted and corrupt as it is,” and an “absolutely vacuous argument that the left has been advancing for years.”

    Perhaps if Limbaugh had read more of the opinion, he would better understand how the Supreme Court could deem “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity” a “compelling interest.” In fact, the American Educational Research Association and “nine other scientific societies” filed an amicus brief in the Fisher case, “urging the court to consider an overwhelming body of evidence” showing “that student body diversity promotes cross-racial understanding, educational and classroom benefits, and professional development,” and “prevents the harms of racial isolation.” A wide range of businesses, public institutions, and educational leadership once again filed amicus briefs in the case, arguing for the value of race-conscious admissions policies. Coalitions of Fortune 100 CEOs and other major business leaders, former senior military officials, several top professional associations for college professors and admissions staff, and the federal government all filed briefs in support of policies like the University of Texas’ admissions approach.

    Race-Conscious Admissions Do Not “Mismatch” Black And Hispanic Students With Schools

    During the Fisher oral arguments in December, the late Justice Antonin Scalia made headlines for referencing the discredited “mismatch theory” that affirmative action policies place underprepared students of color in schools that are too challenging for them. The flawed assumptions that underscore this theory have likewise pervaded right-wing media’s reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Several conservative media figures have expressed their confusion and concern that black and Latino students might somehow be disserved by race-conscious admissions policies in social or emotional ways, in addition to struggling with academic “mismatch.” Commentator Heather Mac Donald, for example, denounced the decision, asserting that “race-based admissions preferences” allow students to “come into environments for which they’re not prepared,” leading to academic failure, “the sort of insanity that this country went through last year with the Black Lives Matter protests on campuses,” and a “growing victimology on campuses.”

    But here are the facts: Numerous studies have shown students of color do better in more selective schools, and experts have discredited what little research backs “mismatch theory.” In fact, a brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Fisher case by experts in methodology and statistics urged the court to disregard the most highly cited study supporting the debunked theory, writing that the study “fails to satisfy the basic standards of good empirical social science research.”

    The Court Has Consistently Applied Strict Legal Scrutiny To Federal Affirmative Action Programs

    The facts haven’t stopped conservative media from once again incorrectly characterizing the ongoing legality of narrowly tailored affirmative action programs as a major shift in legal precedent amounting to reverse racism. This time around, right-wing media figures lamented the Fisher decision as propping up “another kind of discrimination” that might be “equally wrong,” “reverse discrimination” or “racist,” and incorrectly suggested that the decision is related to setting impermissible racial quotas for admissions. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, appeared deeply confused, first insisting that the decision relates to racial quotas specifically. Then, after reading a portion of the majority opinion that highlighted the holistic review process at the University of Texas several times, Limbaugh concluded that affirmative action, which he previously understood as a “glorified quota program,” has shifted to something “even worse.” Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro also asserted that Justice Kennedy had “flipped” in his ruling and that “our freedoms are decided” based on whether the Supreme Court justice “had his Metamucil that morning.”

    But the court’s reaffirmation of the University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions policy, while a surprising decision for many court experts and affirmative action advocates who feared the court had shifted irrevocably to the right, does not break new legal ground. In fact, Kennedy’s opinion specifically represents a continued belief that properly tailored affirmative action programs remain constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- a line of reasoning he has espoused for nearly a decade. The narrow ruling on the Texas holistic admissions approach is the latest Supreme Court opinion to reaffirm what has been a guiding principle since 1978, further detailed in 2003: that the use of race as one factor among many in individualized and holistic considerations of applicants to institutions of higher education remains both necessary and constitutional to ensure the diversity of America's future leaders.