According to one Daniela Perdomo, Fox Business host John Stossel is more dangerous than Glenn Beck because he “thinks unregulated capitalism can solve America’s racial problems.”

Last May, Stossel was quick to come to Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s side when the son of libertarian Texas Congressman Ron Paul was vehemently criticized by left wing commentators for supposedly defending segregation.

Paul was asked on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids businesses from denying service to people on grounds of their race, blurred the lines between public and private ownership. Paul made it clear that while he opposed any form of discrimination, freedoms of speech and enterprise should always trump the quest for equality. “I don’t want to be associated with those people,” said Paul, referring to racists, “but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way.”

Asked to comment on the Fox New Network, Stossel opined that private businesses “ought to get to discriminate. I won’t ever go to a place that’s racist,” he said, “and I’ll tell everybody else not to. And I’ll speak against it. But it should be their right to be racist.”

To Perdomo that sounds like not just defending racism, but encouraging it. She conveniently misquotes the aforementioned statement to make it seem as though Stossel wants businesses to discriminate, neglecting to represent his views in full.

The article goes on to cite other Fox News anchors who find Stossel’s libertarian views too radical for their tastes. Perdomo leaves no doubt about their bigotry—indeed, “Fox News has a longstanding policy of giving race-baiters a soapbox,” she believes—but when it comes to judging Stossel, they are right, for once, it seems.

Also quoted is the executive director of ColorofChange.org, James Rucker, who says that Stossel is more dangerous than Glenn Beck because the former appears to be less insane. “In Stossel you appeal to people who aren’t happy with a black guy in the White House who is trying to figure out how government can support everyday Americans,” according to Rucker. He volunteers no proof for this preposterous assertion, nor does Perdomo, simply because they can’t. Never has Stossel even referred to the president’s race when criticizing his policies. Assuming that his audience isn’t “happy with a black guy in the White House” without bothering to offer any evidence whatsoever in support is condescending and presumptuous of Rucker—and bad journalism of Perdomo’s part for publishing such a statement without disclaimer. Instead, Perdomom perpetuates that narrative and boasts:

There you have it. Racism and closed-mindedness, in the respected figure of a Princeton graduate and decorated journalist, whose soft-spoken yet hate-filled speech is made palatable by his disclaimer that although he believes businesses should have a right to be racist, he personally would boycott such establishments.

She throws in a final sneer aimed at Stossel’s free market views, describing him as part of a “new generation of ignorant hate” which “wants to make us believe that market forces will solve America’s racial problems. This is, of course, wrong—and very dangerous.” Indeed, it’s so obvious apparently that it requires no elaboration. Because defending free enterprise is racist, free enterprise is “very dangerous” altogether, perhaps?