Watch Matt Welch and Kmele Foster React to Obama's Immigration Speech on Tonight's Stossel


On Fox Business Network, at the familiar time-slot of 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, two of your three co-hosts on The Independents will be helping iconic TV personality John Stossel interpret today's immigration speechifying from the Oval Office.

To whet your appetite, here's the mustache on last night's Indies:

NEXT: Colbert Mocks Free State Spinoff 'Free Keene' for Being Obnoxious While Paying Parking Meters

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No thanks, I think I’ll watch the Raiders sneak up on the Chiefs for win #1.

    1. Prescient!

  2. No thanks, unless they first remove Kennedy’s vocal cords.

    1. two of your three co-hosts

      1. They’ll find a way to fuck me if I switch from the game. “And we have a surprise special guest tonight, the always-effervescent Kennedy!”

        1. ‘the always-effervescent Kennedy”

          That’s one way of putting it.

          1. I’m making a rare attempt to be nice.

            They just ran a Corona ad during pre-game, with the obligatory disclaimer, “Please Drink responsibly.” My wife immediately piped up, “Well, what’s the point, then?”

            1. “My wife immediately piped up, “Well, what’s the point, then?””

              Particularly if you’re a Raiders fan; you need to get wasted so your aim is off when you throw things at the tube!

  3. I myself had a bad reaction recently.

    Apparently that was one of Europe’s richest people. She died and left her gagillions to the guy who looks like he’s trying not to puke. the second photo is really the one that sent me out for air.

    And people complain about the Kochs.

    1. What is the matter with her face?

      Is that plastic surgery or inbreeding?

      1. Eh, they showed some pictures of her in her 20’s(ish) on the today show, she didn’t look bad back then.

        How hilarious would it have been if she’d left the latest husband a big, fat nothing? I’d still be laughing about it by the weekend.

        1. Eh, they showed some pictures of her in her 20’s(ish) on the today show, she didn’t look bad back then.

          So plastic surgery.

          1. Yeah, I think so. OTOH you’re going to look like shit at age 90 pretty much regardless, so who cares?

        1. Oh jesus fuck. Little trigger warning next time.

          1. Then I wouldn’t get a reaction like that

        2. Gah! My eyes!

        3. Who’s Jackie Stallone? Is she standing behind Leatherface in that picture or something?

      2. Caption to 4th pic:

        With her cloud of white hair and face molded by plastic surgery, she was rarely out of the Spanish gossip magazines

        1. The family didn’t like the marriage; I can see some very wealthy lawyers in the not too distant future.

  4. Also = “iconic TV personality John Stossel”

    last night it was, ‘Libertarian TV-Legend’. Somehow he got downgraded.

    1. Maybe its power wanes during no-shave november?


    The disadvantages dealt to me by my race and gender are ameliorated to a degree by my socioeconomic and educational status. I don’t “sound black,” which is really a racist way of saying that my patterns of speech conform to those traditionally used by those in power: white, middle-to-upper-class, college educated people. As soon as I open my mouth my intelligence is affirmed, and rarely ever questioned again.

    Expecting someone to speak well = racist. What’s especially funny is that this proves people aren’t racist. If they treat you like an intelligent person once you show yourself to be intelligent (although, based on this article, intelligent is clearly a relative term) then that’s proof they aren’t racists.

    Racist apparently means whatever morons want it to mean, depending on what they’re trying to argue.

    1. When everything is racist, nothing is racist.

      When everything is rape, nothing is rape.

      When everything is political, nothing is rational.

    2. It’s worth reflecting on why the speech patterns and usage of a particular subset of society gets adopted as the ‘proper’ way to communicate.

      1. As a general rule because the people who speak that way are the better educated members of society. The ability to communicate in that manner therefore signals that you’re of a certain level of intellect.

        There’s hardly anything mysterious about this.

        1. I’m not sure that’s how it’s done, I think the upper classes get their speech patterns adopted as the standard. There’s probably some overlap with educational attainment, but not necessarily.

          1. Upper classes? What are you, a Marxist?

            1. Recognizing an upper class=being a Marxist?

              1. What’s your definition of upper class?

                1. I think I just use it a term meaning ‘rich people.’

                  1. Then no. I don’t deny that some people have accumulated more wealth than others. But even so… wouldn’t your “rich people” have better access to education? What function does money have that dictates language?

                    1. That’s why I said there’d be a lot of overlap. But not necessarily, there have been times where the wealthy did not emphasize education as much as they might now. As to how money can dictate language, I think it has to do with people emulating the speech patterns of the upper classes (in order to gain access or ‘put on airs’) and/or wealthy people having influence on the institutions and organizations that standardize speech.

                    2. As much as the “commoners” try to emulate the upper class, they also resent them. I think languages are formed by logic, which is taught in institutions of education, and then from the spontaneous need of people to describe things that are new around them.

                  2. Bo, if you pass the Bar, you can try out this theory for yourself. Instead of addressing a judge as “Your Honor,” you can say “Hey Homie, what the fuck you tryin to pull?” Then sue him for being discriminatory if he lifts an eyebrow.

                    1. It’s interesting how your post actually supports what I’m saying.

                    2. Sure, it’s deconstruction all the way down.

                  3. I think I just use it a term meaning ‘rich people.’

                    So the Duck Dynasty guys?

          2. Bo you are full of shit.

            The last time I cussed you I was drunk as hell. This time I am stone-cold sober.

            1. I’m sober too. I really don’t much care for it.

          3. Bull. The distinct speech patterns of the upper classes are constantly ridiculed by everyone else.

            How standard speech patterns evolve is an interesting and very complex question, not that I’d expect a class warrior such as yourself to resist oversimplifying it. Movies and TV play a huge role in standardizing speech in the US and the world in general, and it’s generally not upper class people who are appearing in those media.

      2. I’ll settle for unambiguous.

    3. Is she hot?

    4. As soon as I open my mouth my intelligence is affirmed

      So, judging a person by how they sound/act is just as racist as judging someone by their race? Does “racist” mean anything anymore? (rhetorical)

    5. “my patterns of speech conform to those traditionally used by those in power: white, middle-to-upper-class, college educated people.”

      Which is how THIS person projects that ‘tradition’ onto ‘that cohort’.

      When i was in college in Tennessee, we had one or two professors from Mississippi, Alabama, who got their PhDs from Oxford, Yale, etc…. and they went out of their way to *emphasize* their down-home drawl. They were aware that it confused the shit out of the suburban yankee students and their ridiculous media-reinforced beliefs that ‘country=stupid’.

      All this class consciousness and ‘status’ perception is completely in the mind of the beholder. It exists because you allow it to. Once you cease caring it has no power anymore.

      1. A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot” goes for sociolinguistic prestige as well.

  6. Being middle-class means I have always had access to good healthcare (including dental) and nutritious food. And let’s not forget fashionable clothes and electronic devices like cell phones, tablets, and computers, which make it easier to get jobs and go to school. My family legacy of higher education affords me cultural capital which came in handy when it was time to apply for college, choose a major and career path (or three), study abroad, take advantage of internships, and apply for jobs in the context of academia. I knew how to do these things because these are normal activities for the people in my family. College has never been an “if,” it has always been a “when.” My path in higher education has never been a “how” of process; it has always been a “how” of preference. And because I am married to a man, the fact that I am also attracted to women has little to no effect on my life. While we’re at it, I’m also relatively thin and able-bodied.

    God, I’m so fucking great. Wait, what were we talking about again?

    1. Ms. Archer?

      No one gives a shit.

    2. “LOL”

      She’s right, it’s definitely a class signal to be able to spew that uninterrupted stream of humble-bragging.

    3. Not self-involved at all, nosirree

    4. OK, that is some craziness right there.

    5. More gender inequality. This time among archaeologists at UC Santa Barbara:…..175045.htm

      1. Bardolph argues, based on feminist theory, that the low rates of publication perpetuate a marginalization of female researchers in academia and demonstrate what she called “a pernicious historical bias with regards to the visibility, recognition, presentation and circulation of women’s writing.”

        I shouldn’t ask, but I will. What the fuck is “feminist theory?”

        1. Decent summary at Wikipedia. It depends on the subject material to a large extent. Here’s an example of feminist theory in geography:

          In addition to its analysis of the real world, it also critiques existing geographical and social studies, arguing that academic traditions are delineated by patriarchy, and that contemporary studies which do not confront the nature of previous work reinforce the male bias of academic study

          Heroic Mulatto can probably give you a better interpretation.

          1. Went to wiki and read it. I now officially hate you forever. I think I can summarize the theory in two words: Men bad!

            You know, I really am at the point that I want everyone off my fucking lawn.

            1. “Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse. It aims to understand the nature of gender inequality. It examines women’s social roles, experience, interests, and feminist politics in a variety of fields”

              That in itself doesn’t sound that crazy or awful. In practice I imagine it’s ‘men bad’ though.

              1. That in itself doesn’t sound that crazy or awful. In practice I imagine it’s ‘men bad’ though.

                Oh, it’s way the fuck crazier than that.

                “Talking back” to hooks and Womanist discourse regarding representations of and reactions to Black women’s bodies, this paper explores three cinematic representations of Black women who play prophetic roles in redeeming humanity in the midst of apocalyptic change. Ika (Quest for Fire), Kee (Children of Men), and The Oracle (The Matrix trilogy) all resist the politics of domination in ways that empower a new generation. These courageous women are matriarchs for those rebelling against a dying status quo. Moreover, they “give birth” to leaders needed to rebuild a world that finds itself in chaos and decay. One film ends with a pregnant women rubbing her belly as she and her mate stand on the precipice of evolutionary change; another woman cradles her newborn infant on the margins of a war-torn world, realizing that her child will be the key inspiration for a new world order; the third character impregnates resistance fighters with ideas and the final sacrifice needed to empower humans to choose their survival in a postapocalyptic world. Defying the politics of an annihilating patriarchy, these women portend a return to a naturally evolving world.

                1. However, despite the implicit nobility of their deeds and the fact that they seem to demonstrate political agency, the aforementioned characters must also be understood as modern-day reinventions of Black female stereotypes?Ika as Jezebel, Kee as Hagar, the Oracle as Mammy?because they, and the indices for understanding their power, are inextricably?and perhaps problematically?wedded to White patriarchs and to their own womanly functions as nurturing or sexual(ized) beings.

                  1. Jezebel and Hagar were Semites. And in Jezebel’s case, as she hailed from what is now Lebanon, she was probably quite fair-complexed, as Lebanese are wont to be.

                    Thanks for culturally appropriating, bro.

        2. I’m glad you asked!

          Affirming the critical ways in which many Black viewers respond to Hollywood films, bell hooks argues that Black female spectators often “construct a theory of looking relations where cinematic visual delight is the pleasure of interrogation” (1992, 126). Such a notion, framed within the context of hooks’s commitment to feminist criticism, allows for “a radical departure from the ‘totalizing agenda’ of feminist film criticism, and the beginning of an oppositional spectatorship for black women” (Smelik 2014). Contributing to this “oppositional spectatorship” is the goal of this paper, one rooted in a gesture outlined in hooks’s earlier work, Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black (1989). In Talking Back, hooks addresses “the church of the home” (5), where Black women express themselves and their ideas freely, but “true speaking”?she contests?is not solely the articulation of words but discovering a platform from which speaking reflects “an act of resistance, a political gesture that challenges the politics of domination” (8). Such expression demonstrates “a courageous act” that must be heard because it offers “a threat” to oppressive, hegemonic forces wielded to annihilate and silence marginalized, potentially rebellious, voices and perspectives (hooks 1989, 8, 6). /blockquote

          1. I now hate you too. And that paper is flawed because–Cytotoxic excepted–we all know that there was only one matrix movie.

      2. Good grief what a stupid article and it doesn’t even make any sense. The main point is that more archaeology published scholarly articles are by men rather than women, though they are roughly evenly divided in the field by gender. But then it goes on to say that men submit far more articles than women, and men and women are roughly accepted/declined at the same rates. So, essentially it sounds like a fair system, and it just works out that men are published more because men submit more, right?

        Of course not, that can’t be your way of thinking in 2014.

        The lady interviewed says, despite all this, that “getting academia to acknowledge gender bias is just one step on a long road to equality.”

        Even when there’s no bias, there’s bias, apparently, if women aren’t equal or better in every little thing.

      3. Based on her research, Bardolph said she suspects the bias is likely a result of authorial behavior rather than editorial or reviewer bias. Women, she noted, are more likely to take on “nurturing” roles in academia and accept positions in smaller teaching colleges as opposed to large research universities with their more abundant resources.

        Protect me from my choices!!!!

        1. It’s worth asking why one group would on average consistently make choices that lead to less prestige and earnings than the other.

          1. It may be worth asking, but it’s not worth “correcting” any more than it’s our business to protect ppl from drugs or assisted suicide or driving without a seatbelt.

    6. Did you check out the first comment in that article? It starts like this:

      Feminism is the sickest, most violent movement to oppress people in western civilization.

      And goes on for about 3 pages. Haaaaaaahahahahaha.

      1. Yeah, I saw that. It’s actually crazier than the original article.

        Like, WAAAAAAAY crazier.

        1. You think you know crazy, bitch? I WILL SHOW YOU FUCKING CRAZY.

      2. 40) Real sexism is the fact that men working longer hours in harder more dangerous jobs to earn more money to pay for women’s choices is being turned into a weapon against men.

        Smart take.

        1. Rapist.

    7. *Sigh*

      Again…these ‘feminists’ are batshit insane. Apparently every Goddamn one.

      And Bo…*heh*….was gonna pick that shit up and run with it.

  7. The disadvantages dealt to me by my race and gender


  8. Cut by half. Nothing to do with the shit economy.

  9. Obama: excellent tie!

  10. Best Obama speech I’ve ever heard. But he is being unnecessarily divisive. He should say he’ll work with Congress for 60 days and if no compromise arises then he will act.

    1. I listened for about 3 minutes before I switched him off.

      All i could hear was,

      Dear Americans = I have decided it is an urgent, national priority to act immediately on behalf of the interests of someone other than you; because even though you are the ones who pay the taxes, you are are the ones who keep this economy barely-chugging along, you stopped voting for my party recently: so Fuck You = i’m releasing the Mexicans on you now. You fucked with the wrong guy.

    2. Jeeze, I didn’t think it started until 9ET.
      Oh, well, missed another Obo speech.

  11. Interesting charts of how liberal or conservative various industry sectors are:…..ative.html

    Strong tilt left: Academics, Media, Computers, Pharma
    Strong tilt right: Real Estate, Agriculture, Construction, Oil/Coal/Gas

    Banking and Finance slight tilt right, Law slight tilt left

    1. Strong tilt left: Academics, Media, Computers, Pharma

      Big Pharma.

      1. I was a bit surprised by that one since I recall a fair amount of leftists bashing Pharmaceutical companies lately (‘they should give their drugs away to the poor sick people but instead give out dividends to their stockholders’).

      2. Awesome.

      3. And if Agriculture gives so much to the Right, what’s the Democrats excuse for never opposing the regular pork in the Farm Bills? They love spending even when it’s for their enemies!

        1. The top set of graphs are just counting number of donors. The bottom graph, which instead measures total dollars contributed, seems like the more relevant way to look at the data.

          In any case, I think both parties have figured out that “spend it all” is a compromise that works for everyone (in D.C.).

    2. So the people who actually make all the shit we eat and use that keeps everyone alive, the people who know how much hard work and diligence is involved in keeping society afloat and the demons at bay, they tilt right.

      People who live in a fantasy world where they are minimally accountable for what they do, they tilt left.

      This comes as a complete surprise to me. I am shocked. Really, I am.

    3. I find it extremely hard to believe that there isn’t a single normal distribution in any of those charts.

      Also, “Online Computer Services” is not the same thing as “Computers” (which is a stupid name for an “industry” anyway, since it’s impossibly broad).

  12. United we dream!

    Gracias Presidente Obama!

  13. Good on Anderson Cooper for showing clips of Obama saying different things on immigration in the past. Jay Carney derp-spinning is just sad.

    1. That’s CNN?

      1. Yes.

  14. I am not an open borders libertarian, thus find this action horrendous. I don’t consider myself an immigrant basher. Problem is, eventually, immigrants or their offspring may vote. When they do, it’s usually not in the interest of liberty.

    1. Those Irish-Americans that voted for Reagan in a big way are doubtlessly what you’re thinking of?

      1. We should really just abolish the congress and just have a president, or go all parliamentary and eliminate the president. You know, sometimes they don’t expand the state and it would be cheaper to just have one legislative/executive body.

      2. I see what you mean. Irish-Americans…Mexicans….exactly the same.

    2. I’m not open borders, either. These people are here already and aren’t going anywhere. Get them on the books and charge them for the privilege of signing up and fingerprint them all. Pass a one strike and you’re out law to thin out the scoundrels. Have them sign a no entitlements contract.

    3. Your parents were Libertarians?

  15. Quick, Stoss, interrupt Welch before he can finish that point!

  16. I don’t understand, why isn’t anyone interrupting Welch? It’s weird.

  17. Why is Foster better dressed for Stossel than his own show?

  18. Basically he’s saying he won’t deport those who meet his criteria?

  19. WHO IS THIS GUY? Is he one of the hosts of < i The Independents?

    1. He’s the other guy.

    2. “Cato Policy Analyst”

      .. being a wonk does not mean you’re necessarily good for TV. Especially that grating voice

  20. It’s nice to hear people make their points without interruptions. Stossel knows how to interject.

  21. IF we were concerned about the rule of law, that might be a problem, yes.

  22. I don’t understand Foster’s point. Bad laws eviscerate themselves? I wish.

  23. Don’t blame Obama for the contradictions in his speech. Blame the teleprompter.

  24. Sounds as though people shouldn’t celebrate so quickly. Congress can use the power of the purse to not fund this effectively killing it, no?

  25. But that bait is right there on the line for the taking. Why would the GOP let it go?

  26. IT’S A TRAP!

    And the stupid party is going to jump into it headfirst.

  27. Matt = brings Bolton Red power suit with *striped shirt* (swoon) POWER!!! The shirt is actually very apropos for the look. Well-executed.

    Kmele = 3-piece badassery (with the Maroon tie) WTF – he dresses up for *stossell*? This just shows how little he feels challenged to step up on TI. That suit really is the Bomb; we’re less crazy about the Tattersall shirt – we like a starched white shirt with the pimp suit.

    1. *Francisco throws the flag*

      Clothing critique of the wrong show.

      15 yards

      1st down

      1. “…Where there is a TV host… I will be there…

        …Where a tie has been mis-knotted… I will be there…

        …where the voice of Kennedy tries to drown out a guest…. I will be there….

        …where a plaid shirt has been mixed with a tie… i might be there… or i might take a leak….”

        1. You are not properly certified to comment on the Stossel wardrobe.

          1. Damn unions! A man’s gotta eat!!

  28. Is this the same studio that < i The Independents uses?

  29. Number of people talking about Grubergate tomorrow: 0.

    1. Stay tuned to The Independents!

  30. Yes…come forward…get your name on the list…get deported by Jeb Bush.

  31. This isn’t Nam. There are rules.

  32. I kind of like this new guy.

    1. I’m trying hard to get past the voice. Not working yet.

        1. My voice is like Barry White, only deeper and smoother.

  33. Deport ’em all, let Allah sort ’em out!

  34. Holy shite, Stossel has the same terrible commercials? No wonder Team Stossel Live Blog split up years ago.

  35. The rare live episode. You can tell this is past Stossel’s bed time.

  36. Hey! Stossel was only 13 in 1914.

  37. That has nothing to do with forcing people to run under the RADAR.

  38. “Begs for mercy because he’s an orphan.” Now that’s a zinger.

  39. Hm. A murder analogy with immigration?


    1. Well, in fairness, he was casting Obama as the murderer.

  40. The NYPD is, what, the 6th largest army in the world?

  41. When’s the Topical Storm?

    1. Stossel’s version is known as Let’s See What’s on the Ticker Tape Today.

  42. Which law has he changed/violated? I’m not seeing it. He is simply prioritizing enforcement due to limited funding.

    The Republicans are going to step in it. It’s like Democrats and guns. They just can’t help themselves.

    1. Publicly announcing that you aren’t going to enforce the law seems a bit different to me than prioritizing.

      1. So, the feds should be enforcing MJ laws in CO, WA…?

        1. I think it would have been better if they changed either the law or the drug schedules instead of keeping the laws on the books and enforcing them selectively.

          1. I don’t disagree that it’d be better, but it ain’t gonna happen. The only thing harder than getting laws passed is getting laws repealed. Especially laws that increase the power of government.

            1. Yes, although I believe that the DEA has the authority to move drugs around within the drug schedules without congressional action. Hence, I think they really did have a pragmatic option to “do this the right way” instead of the way they did it. And I think they chose not to do so for all the wrong reasons.

  43. He doesn’t have the power? He’s no Snap!

  44. Haaaaahahahaha.


  45. Ha! A Canadian! Take that!


    1. We’re OMNIPOTENT.

      Krauthammer, Cruz, the chick in Michigan, Frum…be careful.

      /Prince of Canada.

      1. I’ll talk to you in your own language: TAKE OFF EH.

        1. Make me, HOSER.

          If Frum gets to stay so should I.

  47. “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” -Tacitus

    Sounds as though the immigration laws are biting the USA in the butt.

  48. I didn’t invite this guy to be a citizen just so he can run down our most popular presidents!

  49. Cut-rate razors doesn’t exactly scream “burn free” to me.

  50. As far as I’m concerned there should be a pathway – literally with pave or cobblestone – for Canadians into the USA. Of course, I’m bias.

    1. Their m&m’s are called “smarties”, and they’re disgusting.

      1. I just wish M&M’s would give flavors to the different colors.

        1. They do, to the subtle American palate.

          1. So green is mint? Or basil? Or spinach?

            1. Changing M&Ms; is simply wrong. I withdraw my request for amnesty.

              1. *star-spangled banner plays in background, rising slowly in volume*

  51. The Founders should just send the Vorta.

  52. Has Matt ever explained why he was in Czechoslovakia at 22?

  53. PIZZA!

  54. All I know is Dudley-Do-Right of the RCMP would not approve with illegal immigration.

  55. Fermi and Einstein were immigrants.

  56. What kind of multicultural bull shit is that?

    There’s one race and blood: AMERICA (and to a lesser extent Canamerica!)

  57. Are you done referencing us?

  58. What? How did we get on the subject of language sensitivity?

  59. We gave you Kraft and basketball. Where’s my VISA?

    1. For you, Mastercard!

  60. my friend’s mother makes $64 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for ten months but last month her income was $18244 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to website….


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.