11Bill O'Reilly: 'It's Impossible' For A Juvenile Drug Arrest To Ruin A Kid's Prospects In Life (Video)
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly defends the War on Drugs claiming that drug charges for juvenile offenders can't hurt their prospects in life and that legalizing marijuana will only make it easier for kids to get drugs.
On his Monday night show O’Reilly asked “Is America becoming a weaker nation because of pot and Internet abuse?”
He spoke with Fox contributor Juan Williams and columnist Mary Katharine Ham on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Both argued that the War on Drugs has had a largely negative impact, which O’Reilly denied.
“Primarily the left embraces the drug culture to some extent,” O’Reilly claimed. “Let's begin with the left. What is it about the drug culture, the internet culture, that's so compelling for some of them?”
“Well, I don't think it's compelling, but I think that if you start to arrest their children and give them records and put barriers in front of their futures and their careers, I think people say ‘Wait a second.’ As you said in the previous segment, this is soft drug use, why are you arresting and giving this kid a record, especially minority kids disproportionately. They're the ones who get arrested,” Williams responded.
“So by your thinking then, people fear for their children so they want to make drugs more available. Let's legalize them so they don't get a rap sheet,” O’Reilly argued. He added that juvenile have nothing to fear about getting arrested because the record will eventually be expunged.
"It's almost impossible. The records are expunged if they're juveniles. You know what the game is here. This is not a crime that is actively pursued by district attorneys. All right. I'm just going to discount that argument, Juan,” O’Reilly said. “Mary Katherine, you’re more sympathetic to this drug culture and internet culture world, but do you not see that it is going to weak the country?”
“Look, I think anything that’s not in moderation can be a problem, does that mean it has to be outlawed? No.”
She went on to argue that drug policy and enforcement is inefficient, but O’Reilly interrupted.
“That’s not the issue here. Mary Katherine, you’ve got a baby. You want that baby to be smoking pot … when that baby is 13, 14 years old, do you want the baby to be smoking ‘in moderation’?” O’Reilly asked.
“I would rather not have her smoking weed,” she responded.
“Why would you not have your child - Answer my question!” he interrupted again.
“No, I’m answering the question by saying it doesn’t have to be illegal because I can step in and handle things, and the fact is that freedom is far less likely to be damaging than paternalism and a nanny state!”
“Mary Katharine, you’re babbling,” O’Reilly said. “You don’t want to engage in a conversation.”
“No, I’m saying clear words and making an argument to you," she said.
“No, you’re babbling," he said.
“In the current regime and if pot were legalized, under both, it would be illegal for children. And arguably is could be harder to get for children if it were regulated by the state,” Ham said later in the segment.
Despite his primarily libertarian views, O’Reilly has long been an opponent of decriminalizing marijuana. He was upset in December when the Denver Post hired a marijuana editor.
11Juan Williams: The Right Wanted Martin Bashir, Bill Maher Fired, But 'Cry Foul' For 'Duck Dynasty'? (Video)
Fox News analyst Juan Williams told “Fox News Sunday” that conservative outrage over “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson’s suspension is hypocritical after they called for the heads of MSNBC’s Martin Bashir and HBO’s Bill Maher.
Williams said Robertson’s suspension for making anti-gay remarks to GQ is “not a first amendment issue.”
He said the GOP is not interested in preserving freedom of speech when it applies to people who are critical of conservative values.
Fox News host Chris Wallace asked a panel, “Is political correctness killing our freedom?”
“The reason that the right is so strongly backing this is because they think this is a potential wedge issue, especially with older, white, evangelical voters,” Williams said.
“You think this is all just politics?” Wallace asked.
“Oh, yes. It’s heavily political,” Williams responded. “As everyone has said on this panel, it’s not a first amendment issue.”
“My point is this is not about honest debate,” he added. “What was said actually shuts down debate. It was ugly language about homosexual acts. It invites bigotry. It invites people to hate people who are gay. And this is amazing, because it is not in the Christian tradition, to make judgments about them and to put them in a box.”
“The right goes after Martin Bashir, they wanted Martin Bashir fired,” Williams said. “Remember Dixie Chicks, or Tim Robbins, or Bill Maher? All of that, the right says get them out of here. But they then want to cry foul when people are intolerant of them.”
Illinois GOP congressional candidate Ian Bayne compared Robertson to a modern-day Rosa Parks on Friday.
“In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians. What Parks did was courageous … What Robertson did was courageous too,” Bayne said in a fundraising email.
11Fox News Pundit Juan Williams Tells Fox To Stop Being Delusional About Benghazi: ‘It’s In Your Head’ (Video)
Fox News pundit Juan Williams told a “Fox News Sunday” panel to get over Benghazi after a shouting match with panelist Karl Rove who insisted that President Barack Obama’s administration deliberately misled the public about the attack.
“The American people have a legitimate question: why were efforts not undertaken to save our people?” Rove asked.
On Sep. 11, 2012, the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi in Libya was attacked. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and 10 others were injured. Initially the administration thought the attack was not terror related, but sparked by an anti-Islamic film published to Youtube.
Speaking over Williams’ rebuttal, Rove said, “No assets were put in motion, and as you just admitted, U.S. military on the ground in Tripoli were told don’t go to Benghazi.”
“There was no stand down order,” Williams said. “What we have is: don’t go in after the fact, when we don’t know what you’re getting into, and it could result in more American deaths.”
He continued despite interruption from Rove, “You’re all in the weeds here. You continue to prosecute this like there’s some huge crime. Stop living in the past, and trying to get after Susan Rice or whoever. This has nothing to do with Ambassador Stevens.”
“You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I’m not, and I think we need to get to the bottom of it,” Rove said.
“The list of questions that remain unanswered to this day are what make this still a legitimate conversation,” said panelist Brit Hume. “Juan, I’m sorry to say, this is simply not over.”
“It’s gone baby,” Williams said, as the panel laughed. “It’s in your head. That’s about the only place.”
A panel of all-male Fox News experts recently freaked out in a Socratic gem of a segment explaining that female breadwinners are ruining society as we know it. The discussion was spurred by a recent Pew Research Report showing that 40 percent of American mothers are now part or sole breadwinners in their family.
Resident “liberal” Juan Williams explains:
What we’re seeing with four out of 10 families, now the woman is the primary breadwinner. You’re seeing the disintegration of marriage, you’re seeing men who were hard hit by the economic recession in ways that women weren’t. But you’re seeing, I think, systemically, larger than the political stories that we follow every day, something going terribly wrong in American society, and it’s hurting our children, and it’s going to have impact for generations to come.
Ever the voice of scientific reason, Erick Erickson adds on:
When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it’s tearing us apart.
The Men of Fox News, despite their incredibly outdated theories that even their mothers would reject, believe the business world is no place for women. After all, when men dominated the workplace, women were never mistreated, never abused, and those strong-willed, intelligent men always, always voted on behalf of female interests before that pesky 19th amendment came along. In fact, the phrase “sexual harassment” hadn’t even been coined, because there was no need for women to protect themselves against such good care their doting husbands took of them.
Villagers in Africa have the right idea, according to these men, who believe the rightful place for women ought to be at home child-rearing. There, women have no need for education or any political clout because men, ever the strong and protective heads of households, take wife after wife as they please, impregnating several women at a time, and abandoning them whenever they please so those same women to fend for their own, uneducated selves. Sure, this reasoning may be a bit far-fetched from what the Men of Fox News actually meant, but it is jarringly similar to the line of reasoning these same men make, explaining that same-sex marriage will undoubtedly open the door to human-animal marriage.
Society has advanced and changed, as difficult as it is for these men to swallow, which is, and always has been, a good thing. The 1950s may have been a hallmark of all-American values for these men, but since then, we’ve figured out that seatbelts save lives, and smoking causes cancer, and that interracial marriage and discrimination based on race, sex or religion shouldn’t be legal.
Working women has long been the centerpiece of women’s empowerment and advancement. And an answer (among many others) to why women entered the workforce in the first place can be seen if these men actually look in the mirror.
But for future reference, they’d be able to achieve a little more credibility when spouting off their ideas about women if they actually had a woman present. And no, Ann Coulter doesn’t count.