After Newt Gingrich defended his oft-repeated claim that President Obama is "the best food stamp president in American history," Fox News took up the theme and amplified it. But as numerous experts have pointed out, increased enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is due mainly to the economic downturn which predated Obama's administration.

Gingrich: Obama Is "The Best Food Stamp President In American History"

Gingrich: "More People Are On Food Stamps Today Because Of Obama's Policies Than Ever In History." While covering Gingrich's comments during a January 5 campaign stop, CBS News reported:

Gingrich, during an appearance in Plymouth, New Hampshire, spoke about remarks he would theoretically make if invited to speak to the NAACP.

"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.

The former House speaker has made a habit of calling President Obama the "food stamp president" -- a nickname he used on Thursday as well -- and has often painted the contrast between himself and Mr. Obama as a choice between paychecks and food stamps.

"The fact is, if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple: Food stamps versus paychecks," Gingrich said. "Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history." [CBS News, 1/6/12]

Gingrich: "More People Have Been Put On Food Stamps By Barack Obama Than Any President In American History." During the January 16 GOP primary debate, Gingrich had this exchange with Fox News contributor Juan Williams:

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don't see that.

[...]

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion that you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I've got to tell you, my email account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.

You saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as "the food stamp president." It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. [Fox Nation, 1/17/12]

Fox News Parrots Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President"

Eric Bolling Echoed Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President." On Fox News' The Five, Eric Bolling defended Gingrich, saying of Obama:

BOLLING: But he is the food stamp president. There I have no problem with this. Allow me, and I'll shut up the rest of the block. Obama has presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program -- the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it's exploded. Why can't he be -- and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it's not a racial issue. [Fox News, The Five, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]

Dick Morris: "Newt Is Right. ... Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare." On the January 18 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:

MORRIS: Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12]

Sean Hannity: "He Is The Food Stamp President. Look At The Numbers, They Speak For Themselves." Fox News host Sean Hannity pointed to increased food stamp usage to label Obama the "food stamp president," saying: "He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves -- 32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama's policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What's the problem?" [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Tucker Carlson: "More People Have Joined The Food Stamps Program Under Obama Than Any Other President." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson praised Gingrich for the "great job" he did explaining why he thinks Obama is the "food stamp president," adding: "And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12]

Monica Crowley: Record Number Of Food Stamp Usage Is "A Direct Result Of The Obama Administration's Policies." On Fox News' America Live, contributor Monica Crowley argued:

CROWLEY: At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with polices that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn't say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on.

You know how the situation in America, Megyn, where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that's a direct result of the Obama administration's policies. [Fox News, America Live, 1/18/12]

Sarah Palin: White House "Protests Too Much Because The Facts Are What They Are." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin criticized the White House for pushing back on Gingrich's statement, saying that "they protest too much because the facts are what they are -- and that's hundreds of thousands of more Americans are now on food stamps than before Barack Obama took over." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12]

In Fact, More People Have Been "Put" On Food Stamps By Bush Than Obama

Bob Beckel: "The Largest Percentage Increase In Food Stamps Happened Not Under This President But Under George W. Bush." As co-host Bob Beckel noted on The Five, "the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush":

BECKEL: I want to say something to my friend Juan Williams who sat in here for me. That shot by Gingrich was a cheap shot. You used a lot of courage, Juan, coming up with what you did and said to Gingrich. His response that he turned into an ad now was a cheap shot. Those people who -- those yahoos that stood up in that audience and cheered that were unbelievable to me that they would do it.

And let me make one other point, Newt. If you ever want to get your facts straight, the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush. [Fox News, The Five, 1/18/12]

FactCheck.Org: Food Stamp Program "Has So Far Grown By 444,574 Fewer Recipients During Obama's Time In Office Than During Bush's." In a "fact check" of what it called "Newt's Faulty Food-Stamp Claim," FactCheck.org stated that "Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible," writing: "Newt Gingrich claims that 'more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.' He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures." The article continued:

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then. [FactCheck.org, 1/18/12]

CBS News: "Percent Increase In Beneficiaries During Mr. Bush's Presidency Was Higher Than It Has Been Under Mr. Obama." CBS News noted that the increase in food stamps enrollment "hardly makes Obama the 'best food stamp president in American history,' " adding that the "percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama." From CBS News:

While the number of people on food stamps is indeed at a record level, that's in part because of eligibility rules being relaxed under the administration of George W. Bush. It's also due in part to the economic downturn that began under Mr. Bush.

[...]

For the most recent month with available data, October 2011, 46.2 million people were enrolled in the food stamp program, which is formally known the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Since Mr. Obama took office, the percent increase in enrollment has been 44.5 percent.

However, that percentage increase hardly makes Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," at least when you look at the question proportionally. The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama: The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008 -- an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary. [CBS News, 1/17/12]

And The Recent Increase In Food Stamps Enrollment Is Due To The Economic Downturn

US News & World Report: Food Stamps Enrollment Was On The Rise "Well Before" Obama Took Office. From US News & World Report:

Food stamp usage has, as Gingrich suggested, increased dramatically during the Obama presidency, but hanging the increase on the president is difficult. Participation in the Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the program to which "food stamps" refers, has increased from an average of 28.2 million people per month in FY 2008 to 46.2 million as of October 2011, the most recent month for which data is available. However, SNAP participation has been on the rise since well before President Obama took office. Nearly 17.2 million people in FY 2000 participated in the program, a figure that increased by nearly 64 percent by 2008. [US News & World Report, 1/17/12]

AP "Fact Check": Food Stamp Usage Increase "Due Mainly To The Ailing Economy." In a "fact check" of the GOP debate, the Associated Press identified Gingrich's statement as one of the "distortions" of the debate, writing that the facts prove that the increase in food stamp usage is "due mainly to the ailing economy" and "rising food costs." The article also noted that "[e]ligibility rules [for the program] were relaxed in 2002 and 2008 during the Bush administration." [Associated Press, 1/17/12]

CBPP: Growth "Reflects The Fact That More Households Are Becoming Eligible Because Of The Recession." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the "rapid caseload growth primarily reflects the fact that more households are becoming eligible because of the recession." CBPP added: "SNAP caseloads can grow for two reasons: because more households are qualifying for the program and enrolling or because a larger share of eligible households are signing up. Both of these occurred in recent years." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]

CBPP: "SNAP Kept More Than 5 Million People Out Of Poverty In 2010." According to CBPP, "SNAP caseloads have increased significantly since late 2007, as the recession and lagging recovery battered the economic circumstances of millions of Americans and dramatically increased the number of low-income households who qualify and apply for help from the program." CBPP further stressed that recent growth in SNAP "is temporary." CBPP added:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that SNAP spending will fall as a share of GDP in coming years as the economy recovers and the Recovery Act provisions end. By 2021 SNAP is expected to return nearly to pre-recession levels as a share of GDP. Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the overall economy and thus is not contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problems. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]

Krugman: Spending On Food Stamps Surged "Because The Economy Is Depressed." On his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained the increase in "income security" spending, including food stamps, writing:

"Income security" is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits -- in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged -- because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.

What we're seeing isn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we're seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. [The New York Times, 4/25/11]

This Isn't The First Time Fox Has Promoted Obama As The "Food Stamp President"

Gingrich Blamed Obama For "Set[Ting] An All-Time Record For The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps." In September 2010, then-Fox News contributor Gingrich stated that Obama "has set an all-time record for the number of Americans on food stamps." He added: "I mean, that's not where you want to go. You want to go to a paycheck, not a food stamp." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 9/12/10]

Ann Coulter Suggested Calling Obama's Bus Tour "Food Stamp Express Live." On Fox & Friends, Ann Coulter replied to the hosts' question about "what to call President Obama's bus tour" by saying: "How about Food Stamp Express Live?" Co-host Clayton Morris responded: "I think Newt Gingrich would be on board with that one." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/7/11]

Greg Gutfeld Proposed A "Food Stamp Wallet" As A Souvenir That Would "Fit Obama." Talking about souvenir items "that fit Obama," Fox News host Greg Gutfeld stated: "You need a food stamp wallet. That would be nice ... because there are millions and millions of people on food stamps right now, so that would be nice." [Fox News, The Five, 8/17/11]

Laura Ingraham: Obama Re-election Bumper Sticker Should Be "Food Stamps For Everyone." Discussing Obama's statement that benefits programs like SNAP stimulate the economy, host Laura Ingraham said: "So it would be a bumper sticker: Re-elect Obama: Food Stamps For Everyone." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/7/11]

Fox Graphic Adopted Gingrich's "Paychecks Vs. Food Stamps" Slogan. During an edition of Fox & Friends, Fox adopted Gingrich's slogan, "Paychecks vs. Food Stamps":

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/8/10]

The right-wing media have used President Obama's speech at Walt Disney World as an opportunity to attack him, despite the fact that previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan, have given speeches at Disney parks while in office.

Right-Wing Media Accuse Obama Of "Ruin[ing] Families' Vacations" With Speech

Fox Nation: "Obama's Selfish Disney World Speech Ruins Families' Vacations." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 1/19/12]

Human Events Quotes GOP Operative Alleging "Major Disruption For Thousands Of Families" Due To Speech, Criticizing "Optics" Of "Literally Shutting Down 'Main Street USA.' " From a Human Events article:

Jason Recher, who served as assistant to President George W. Bush and was his trip director in addition to being a senior advisor to the McCain-Palin '08 presidential campaign, said that though all sides of the political spectrum can agree that Disney World should not be polarized and that tourism should be vigorously promoted, the optics of Obama's Disney World event may step on his message, which Recher said was a cardinal sin of political event staging.

"The White House is literally shutting down 'Main Street USA' --  including dozens of vibrant shops, restaurants and attractions," Recher told HUMAN EVENTS. "[Obama's] job-killing policies have already shut down many real Main Streets across our country, so I guess it makes sense."

Recher said Obama's event will send the "message that visuals are more important than vacations and vocations" and, while acknowledging the U.S. Secret Service is the best in the world at what they do, they "will cause a major disruption for thousands of families from around the country and world who have scrimped and saved to make this moment special for their families." [Human Events, 1/19/12]

IBD's Malcolm: Disney Tourists "Are Just Plum Out Of Luck, Like Grumpy." From an Investor's Business Daily blog post by Andrew Malcolm:

Hey, Mr. President! You've just destroyed the Keystone XL pipeline project and thousands of new union jobs. What are you gonna do now?

"I'm going to Disney World."

No, it's not another Obama vacation. He's flying Air Force One down to Orlando this morning on business.

His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states. Naturally, this requires another Obama speech.

And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? 

But here's the problem with Obama going to Disney's Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he's there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred.

So, Main Street won't look anything like the photo above. And the thousands of existing tourists who expected to spend a valuable vacation day strolling the old-fashioned shops for fudge and Mickey ears, riding the steam-powered cars and horse-drawn streetcars and getting a photo with the real Snow White today are just plum out of luck, like Grumpy. [Investor's Business Daily, 1/19/12]

Previous Presidents Have Given Speeches At At Disney Theme Parks

Disney: Obama Is Fourth Sitting President To Visit A Disney Theme Park. From a Disney Parks blog entry:

President Barack Obama is making Disney history today by becoming the fourth sitting president to ever visit a Disney theme park.

[...]

In November 1978, President Jimmy Carter became the first sitting president to visit a Disney park when he attended the opening session of the 26th World Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce meeting at Magic Kingdom.

President Ronald Reagan made two visits to Epcot during his presidency. The first took place March 8, 1983, where he appeared at the park to address international students who would work at World Showcase. The President returned in 1985 to hold his second-term inaugural celebration at Epcot, which included a parade around World Showcase.

President George H.W. Bush also visited Epcot, where he presided over the first Points of Light ceremony honoring volunteers for their service work, at the America Gardens Theatre in 1991. [Disney Parks Blog, 1/19/12]

Nixon Spoke At Disney Resort. From Central Florida News 13:

It's well known that President Richard Nixon famously declared he was "not a crook" at Walt Disney World in 1973, but that was during a convention at Disney's Contemporary Resort, not inside the Magic Kingdom.

Nixon proclaimed his innocence amid the infamous Watergate scandal, which eventually led to his regisnation as president. [Central Florida News 13, 1/19/12]

Right-wing media figures are slamming President Obama for the State Department's decision to reject plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline until a full assessment can be made, claiming that he is "killing jobs." But they cite industry-funded estimates of job creation that are wildly inflated. Moreover, the administration had long warned that it would be unable to complete the legally required review under the deadline imposed by a GOP-backed provision and would thus be forced to reject the project, and conservative outlets have previously attacked other Obama proposals that experts say significantly boost economic growth.

Obama Admin Had Warned That GOP Deadline Could Make It Unable To Complete Review Required To Ensure Pipeline Meets Environmental Standards

The Hill: "Obama Signs Payroll Tax Bill That Requires Speedy Decision On Keystone Pipeline." From a December 23, 2011, article in The Hill:

President Obama signed into law a broad payroll tax package Friday afternoon that includes a measure requiring him to make a speedy decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The GOP-backed measure requires the administration to make a decision within 60 days on the pipeline, which would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast. In order to reject the pipeline, Obama would have to declare that the project is not in the national interest. [The Hill, 12/23/11]

State Department Spokesman: 60-Day Deadline "Would Prohibit The Department From Acting Consistently With National Environmental Policy Act Requirements." From a December 12, 2011, article in The Hill:

The State Department is warning Republicans that forcing a decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline within two months won't bring the project approval they're seeking.

House Republicans are including a provision in payroll tax cut legislation that would require State to issue a permit for the proposed Alberta-to-Texas pipeline within 60 days, unless the president determines that it's not in the national interest. Senate GOP leaders are also pushing the Keystone provision.

But a State spokesman said Monday that the 60-day time frame would leave the administration unable to issue the permit for TransCanada Corp.'s proposed $7 billion pipeline.

"Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, its actions would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the Department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by not allowing sufficient time for the development of this information," the spokesman said.

"In the absence of properly completing the process, the Department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project," State added. [The Hill, 12/12/11]

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: Deadline Makes It "Very Difficult" For State Department "To Say That That Review Had Been Responsibly Achieved." From a December 22, 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek article:

An effort by Congress to prod President Barack Obama on the Keystone XL oil pipeline gives the administration insufficient time to complete a review that meets environmental laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Language in a Senate bill extending the U.S. payroll-tax cut sets a 60-day deadline for a permit to be issued by the State Department, and a full review takes longer, Carney said yesterday at a White House news briefing.

"It would be very difficult, as I understand it, for the State Department to say that that review had been responsibly achieved in 60 days," Carney said. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 12/22/11]

Wash. Post: Administration Officials Have Said Timeline Makes Review "Difficult" Because Firm Won't Have Clarified Pipeline Route Before June. From a January 14 Washington Post article:

Administration officials have said that the truncated timeline makes it difficult to complete a review of whether the pipeline is in the national interest, given the fact TransCanada has yet to outline an alternate route.

[...]

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said the company received guidance just last month from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality on what areas in the Sandhills were off-limits, adding that the firm will be able to have the new route's outline ready between June and September. [The Washington Post, 1/14/12]

State Department Estimated It Would Need Until "Early 2013" To Analyze Environmental Impact Of New Route Alternative. From the December 12, 2011, Congressional Research Service report "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues":

On November 10, 2011, in response to concerns regarding the pipeline route and actions by the Nebraska legislature applicable to pipeline siting, the State Department announced a delay in its national interest determination to gather additional information necessary to assess a new pipeline route avoiding the Sand Hills. On November 14, 2011, TransCanada announced its decision to work with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to identify an acceptable pipeline route around the Sand Hills. The State Department estimates that the preparation of supplemental environmental analysis necessary for a new route alternative may be complete in early 2013. [Congressional Research Service, "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues," 12/12/11]

Obama, State Department Reiterated That The "Rushed And Arbitrary Deadline Insisted On By" GOP Forced Rejection Of Pipeline

State Department Assistant Secretary Jones: Decision Based "On The Fact That We Don't Have The Time To Get" Necessary Information On Alternative Routes. During a January 18 press call, Kerri Ann-Jones, assistant secretary of the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said:

As you know, today the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline be denied and that at this time the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline be determined to not serve the national interest. The President agreed with the Department's recommendation. This recommendation was predicated on the fact that the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act that was passed in December does not provide sufficient time to obtain the information that we think is necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

As you -- many of you know, we made a decision on November 10th that we needed additional information regarding this project, specifically about alternative routes through Nebraska. And we base this decision now on the fact that we don't have time to get that information, information we think is essential for making a well-informed decision. So I think I'll stop there and open it up for questions.

[...]

This is a process decision that we made based on the decision that we made on November 10th and the information that we felt we needed to really inform our decision to make sure we had everything we needed to do the best, in terms of looking at this pipeline and determining whether or not it was in the national interest. So the White House made that decision. We, today, recommended to the President that the permit be denied, and also that he determine that it was not in the national interest. The legislation did not give us enough time to really do responsible evaluation of the factors. And so we continue to believe that this has to be done the right way. So from my perspective, this has not been - this decision is based on what we did November 10th, and then the legislation has not given us adequate time to carry that out. [Jones press teleconference, 1/18/12, via State.gov]

Obama: "The Rushed And Arbitrary Deadline Insisted On By Congressional Republicans Prevented A Full Assessment Of The Pipeline's Impact." From Obama's January 18 statement on the Keystone XL pipeline:

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State's recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.  As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied.  And after reviewing the State Department's report, I agree. 
 
This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.  I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. [WhiteHouse.gov, 1/18/12]

Permit Review Process Was Established By Executive Order Signed By Bush

Executive Order Directs State Department To Review Applications For Presidential Permits When Projects Would Cross International Border. From the December 12, 2011, Congressional Research Service report "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues":

Ordinarily, the U.S. government does not have permit authority for oil pipelines, even interstate pipelines. This is in contrast to interstate natural gas pipelines, which, under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, must obtain a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Generally, the primary siting authority for oil pipelines would be established under applicable state law (which may vary considerably from state to state). However, the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of a pipeline that connects the United States with a foreign country requires executive permission conveyed through a Presidential Permit. Since the Keystone and proposed Keystone XL pipeline are designed for the importation of oil from Canada, their facilities require a Presidential Permit.

Executive Order 13337 delegates to the Secretary of State the President's authority to receive applications for Presidential Permits. Issuance of a Presidential Permit is dependant upon a finding that the project would serve the national interest. In the course of making that determination, the state Department is obligated to consider a host of issues related to the proposed project including its potential impacts to the environment, economy, energy security, and foreign policy, to name a few. In that capacity, the State Department is required to consult with relevant federal and state agencies and to invite public comment in arriving at its determination. Ultimately, however, the State Department has discretion in determining what factors to examine to inform its determination of whether a proposed project is in the national interest (i.e., will be granted a Presidential Permit). [Congressional Research Service, "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues," 12/12/11]

President George W. Bush Signed Executive Order On April 30, 2004. [Archives.gov, accessed 1/18/12]

But Conservatives Nonetheless Attacked Obama For "Reject[ing]" Keystone XL Pipeline And "Killing Jobs"

Trump: Keystone Rejection Is "Disgraceful," Pipeline Would Create "Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs." From the January 18 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there's big news today pitting the environmentalists against labor and the Republicans against the Democrats and business against anti-business and everybody else over this Keystone pipeline project. Your thought about the news that it is at least -- no permit is going to be issued at least now for the pipeline.

DONALD TRUMP (Fox News regular guest): Well I think it's disgraceful. And, frankly, we don't need Canada. We should just be able to drill our own oil. But as long as it's there we certainly should have approved it. It was jobs and it was cheaper oil. And it's just absolutely incredible. I guess President Obama took care of the environmentalists. But it is absolutely terrible, and it is not an environmental problem at all, in any way, shape, or form.

[...]

TRUMP: It's just a total mess. This is the way our country has been run. It's a laughing stock, Greta, all over the world. All over the world they laugh at us. People tell me about the Keystone from Europe and from other places and from China. And they don't even know what's going on. They can't even believe it. But you know, honestly, we're taking oil from Canada. We're paying Canada a lot of money. We don't even need Canadian oil if we did it right. The really right way is drill our own oil. We have so much of it we don't know what to do. Between natural gas and oil and lots of other things we should be doing our own. But the fact is that Keystone pipeline is a positive. You're talking about tens of thousands of jobs. You're talking about lower oil. And let's have at least the option of taking the oil from Canada, which we don't need if we would do it really right. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Jonathan Hoenig: It's "Bewildering To Me" Why Obama Would "Use Force To Block A Company" That Wants To Invest In America And Create Jobs. From the January 18 edition of Fox Business' Cavuto:

NEIL CAVUTO: Alright, so I guess -- I kind of saw this coming, Jonathan, but using the words of the president here in a statement that this was something that was rushed on him by Congress and he wouldn't have it -- I don't know. 

JONATHAN HOENIG:  Well, why does he get to choose, Neil? I mean, it's not only bad policy from the White House, but it's destructive policy. The president often talks about energy independence, about making big infrastructure investments in this country. But yet for some reason -- bewildering to me -- he's willing to use force to block a company that actually wants to invest in this country. Creating the jobs, creating the energy that could actually bring gas prices down and power the economy forward. It's bewildering to me why he would stand in place of this. [Fox Business, Cavuto, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Fox Nation: "Obama Approves Solyndra But Rejects Keystone Pipeline." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 1/18/12]

The Daily Caller: "Obama Nixes Pipeline, 20,000 Jobs." A January 18  Daily Caller article headlined "Obama nixes pipeline, 20,000 jobs" reported:

President Barack Obama used a press release today to blame the GOP for his decision to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline, and its estimated 20,000 construction jobs. [The Daily Caller, 1/18/12]

Geller: "Obama's War On America: Obama Kills Pipeline,25,000 130,000 Jobs, Cheaper Energy." In a January 18 post on Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller responded to the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline by stating, "Job killer, economy killer, energy independence killer ........... instead he shooses to enrich and embolden funding Islamic supremacist nations with petrol dollars." [Atlas Shrugs, 1/18/12]

Hoft: Obama "Kills Keystone" And Is "Killing Jobs -- Playing Golf." In a January 18 post on his blog Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft announced the State Department's plans to reject the Keystone XL pipeline and commented:

Barack Obama: Killing Jobs -- Playing Golf
With gas prices at record highs -- The Obama State Department today announced that they WILL NOT approve the Keystone Pipeline from Canada.

The Keystone Pipeline project was expected to create tens of thousands of high paying jobs in the oil industry. The project itself would create 20,000 construction jobs.

But it was just a big pipe dream. [Gateway Pundit, 1/18/12, emphasis original]

Conservatives Previously Mocked Obama's Statement That His Proposals That Would Create More Jobs Than Keystone XL

Obama: "However Many Jobs Might Be Generated By A Keystone Pipeline, They're Going To Be A Lot Fewer Than The Jobs That Are Created By Extending The Payroll Tax Cut And Extending Unemployment Insurance." From a December 8, 2011, statement by Obama:

OBAMA: Keep in mind, on the payroll tax cut, this is something that Democrats and Republicans agreed to last year with little fanfare, and it was good for the economy. And independent economists estimate that for us to not extend it right now -- to not extend payroll tax cut, not extend unemployment insurance -- would have a significant, adverse impact on our economy, right at a time when we're supposed to be growing the economy.

So when I hear the Speaker or the Senate Republican leader wanting to dicker, wanting to see what can they extract from us in order to get this done, my response to them is, just do the right thing: Focus on the American people, focus on the economy right now. 

I know the suggestion right now is, is that somehow, well, this Keystone issue will create jobs. That's being determined by the State Department right now, and there is a process. But here's what I know: However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline, they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance. [WhiteHouse.gov, 12/8/11] 

To see how right-wing media figures responded by  downplaying the benefits of extending unemployment insurance and payroll tax cuts, click here.

But Economists Agree That Unemployment Benefits And The Payroll Tax Cut Have A Strong Effect On Job Creation And Growth

EPI: Extending Unemployment Benefits Through 2012 Will Create Roughly 560,000 Jobs. In a November 4 report, Economic Policy Institute (EPI) President Lawrence Mishel and EPI researcher Heidi Shierholz wrote:

While it would cost an estimated $45 billion to continue the extensions, the economic boost would be much greater because this spending would have a large "multiplier" effect. Long-term unemployed workers are almost by definition cash-strapped and have very little choice but to immediately spend their unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits spent on rent, groceries, and other necessities increase economic activity, and that increased economic activity saves and creates jobs throughout the economy. For this reason, economists, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, widely recognize government spending on unemployment insurance benefits as one of the most effective things that can be done in a recession to generate jobs. Spending $45 billion on unemployment insurance extensions in 2012 would increase GDP by an estimated $72 billion, raising our $15.2 trillion GDP by roughly 0.5 percent. This increase in economic activity translates into roughly 560,000 payroll jobs. In other words, extending the federally funded unemployment insurance extensions through 2012 would not only extend a lifeline to the families of millions of long-term unemployed workers, it would also generate spending that supports well over half a million jobs. If this program is discontinued, the economy will lose these jobs.

[...]

Of the $72 billion increase in GDP related to continuing the unemployment insurance benefit extensions through 2012, some 37.4 percent, or $26.9 billion, would be recouped in higher revenues, as more people and firms pay taxes, and in lower expenditures. Consequently, the effective cost to the budget of continuing the UI benefits extension for a year is $18.1 billion instead of $45 billion. This means that the continuation of unemployment insurance benefit extensions through 2012 would save 560,000 jobs at an effective cost of around $32,000 per position. That alone is a good deal, but when we remember that these expenditures would assist millions of families of the long-term unemployed during the worst downturn in seven decades, the case for continuing the extensions could not be more clear. [EPI, 11/4/11] 

CBO Scored "Increasing Aid To The Unemployed" As The Highest-Scoring Policy Proposal To Efficiently Stimulate Economy. In a November 2011 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2012 and 2013," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:

Policies that would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2012 and 2013 are ones that would reduce the marginal cost to businesses of adding employees or that would be targeted toward people who would be most likely to spend the additional income. Such policies include reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits in 2012 for lower- and middle-income households. [CBO, 11/15/11]

According to a table in the report, the CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effect on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.

Numerous Experts Have Promoted Payroll Tax Cut To Create Jobs And Economic Growth.  Cornell University economics progessor Robert Frank, University of Delaware economics professor Laurence Seidman, University of California, Berkeley professor and former Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Laura Tyson, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New York University's Stern School of Business professor Nouriel Roubini,  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and former Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag have all touted the ability of payroll tax cuts to create jobs and increase economic growth. [Media Matters, 12/9/11]

To read more about how unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut would create jobs,  click here.

By Contrast, Pipeline Could Create As Few As 2,500 Temporary Construction Jobs And 50 Permanent Jobs

TransCanada Said In 2010 That Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create Over ... 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers." In a 2010 press release by TransCanada, the company funding the Keystone XL pipeline, touted their connection with various unions and claimed they would "create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers." From the press release:

TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada) (TSX, NYSE: TRP) today is pleased to announce a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL). The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers. [TransCanada, 9/14/10]

Cornell University Global Labor Institute: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Project Will Create No More Than 2,500-4,600 Temporary Direct Construction Jobs." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report:

A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

Cornell University Global Labor Institute: "Based On The Figures Provided By TransCanada For The Canadian Section Of The Pipeline, The New Permanent US Pipeline Jobs In The US Number As Few As 50." From Cornell University Global Labor Institute's report:

[T]he potential job impacts associated with KXL construction are quite small, both absolutely and certainly relative to the employment levels estimated by the Perryman study.  In comparing these results with those from the Perryman study, it is useful to keep in mind that even results based on the Perryman study would be much lower, once they are adjusted for more realistic project cost assumptions.

Starting with the Perryman study total employment estimated for project construction (119,000 person-years), the Perryman results can be adjusted for more realistic project cost assumptions. Also starting with the $6.6 billion in project costs assumed by Perryman, and adjusting for the $5.4 billion project cost for KXL in the US, the adjusted Perryman result is about 97,000 person-years. Next, instead of assuming a $4 billion KXL US project cost not yet spent, the adjusted Perryman result drops to about 72,000 person-years. And finally, assuming a $3 billion KXL US cost not yet spent or committed, the adjusted Perryman results drops again to 54,000 person-years.

So even if it is assumed the Perryman study provides a reasonable estimate of job impacts per dollar spent on pipeline construction (i.e. 18 person-years per $1 million), total job impact will be much lower than the Perryman results once a more realistic budget is assumed for project construction. And whatever is estimated for total employment impacts, it must be spread over the relevant period in order to meaningfully estimate annual impacts. For KXL construction, the relevant period is at least two and perhaps more likely three years.

In this context, it is also important to consider that almost all of the jobs (direct, indirect and induced) associated with Keystone XL will, of course, also be temporary. The operating costs for KXL are very minimal, and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline, the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

For more information about Keystone XL pipeline's potential impact on job creation, click here. 

After Wisconsin officials reported that opponents of Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) turned in more than 1 million signatures calling for a recall election, Fox & Friends hosted Walker for a softball interview in which the co-hosts reassured him that the recall is "not really about" him and said they "wish[ed]" they were interviewing Walker under "better circumstances." This follows the show's long history of promoting Walker and his policies and attacking his critics.

"It's Not Really About Gov. Scott Walker": Fox & Friends Hosts Walker To Sympathize As Recall Petitions Turned In

NYT: "Organizers Say 1 Million Signed Petition To Recall Wisconsin Governor." On January 17, opponents of Walker announced they collected more than 1 million petition signatures calling for a recall election. From The New York Times:

Critics of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin submitted to the state on Tuesday more than a million signatures, nearly twice as many as required, on recall petitions against him to force a new election.

State election officials now begin the arduous, expensive process of studying the petitions for flaws and duplicated names. But leaders of the recall effort said the number of signatures was so large as to put any serious legal challenge out of reach. The anti-Walker forces needed 540,208 names and had estimated that they would produce at least 720,000, so the still larger number came as a surprise to many.

Barring a legal fight, Mr. Walker, a Republican who took office a year ago and set off a firestorm by curtailing collective bargaining rights for public workers, will face a new election in the late spring or early summer. Around the country, only two governors have ever been removed through recall. [The New York Times, 1/17/12]

Carlson: "It's So Great To See You In Person. I Wish For You Personally It Was For Better Circumstances." On the January 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts interviewed Walker. Co-host Gretchen Carlson began the interview by saying to Walker, "I believe this is your debut on the curvy couch [in the studio] ... Well, it's so great to see you in person. I wish for you personally it was for better circumstances." Later, after Walker said that his administration had "kept all of our promises," Carlson said, "And, by the way, Wisconsin has added jobs in the meantime and cut costs at the same time." Co-host Brian Kilmeade later said, "And what I'm getting from you, and from all the plethora of material, it's not really about Governor Scott Walker. This is about the next election and the direction of our country." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/18/11]

Fox & Friends Has A Long History Of Promoting Walker And His Policies ...

"No One Can Question Your Leadership": Kilmeade Tossed Softballs To Gov. Walker In Fawning Interview. On the November 22, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed the efforts to recall Walker and then interviewed him. Before the interview, Carlson said to Kilmeade, "One thing I hope you ask him is how many jobs have been created in that state." Kilmeade began the interview by saying, "You're already in motion to protect your position. How disappointing is it that you've got to worry about a recall and not just worry about the state's business?" Kilmeade later said to Walker, "No one can question your leadership." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/22/11]

Fox & Friends Hyped Flawed Jobs Claim To Tout Walker's Policies. On the August 3, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, Carlson introduced a segment featuring Walker by claiming: "In June, the state gained 8,500 jobs. That's more than half of what the entire nation gained overall." Co-host Steve Doocy added: "One of those reasons for success, the governor, just seven months on the job, Scott Walker has helped the state get back more than a quarter of the jobs lost during the big recession. How did he do it?"

• PolitiFact Wisconsin Rated WI Jobs Claim "False." PolitiFact Wisconsin rated the claim that "more than half the nation's job growth in June came from Wisconsin" false, writing that Walker and GOP state officials were making "a flawed comparison." The Associated Press also reported that the statement "could lead to a faulty inference" since five states had added more net jobs in June 2011 than Wisconsin had. [Media Matters, 8/3/11]

Fox & Friends Extensively Covered Threats To Walker And Republican Lawmakers, But Previously Mocked Threats To Democrats. On the March 14, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts repeatedly discussed "death threats" reportedly received by Republican Wisconsin lawmakers and attacked Time magazine for referring to Walker as "Dead Man Walker." Yet during the debates over health care reform in March 2010, the co-hosts mocked threats to Democratic lawmakers; Kilmeade asked on the March 25, 2010, edition of the show if "Democrats [are] using" threats of violence "to their advantage to marginalize Republican opposition?" Carlson agreed that it was "disappointing" that Democrats were making the threats public and said that "they should just stop discussing it altogether." [Media Matters, 3/14/11]

Fox & Friends Reversed Poll Results To Falsely Claim Most Americans Favored Ending Collective Bargaining. On the February 23, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, while discussing protests in Wisconsin over Walker's efforts to end public employees' collective bargaining rights, Kilmeade claimed, as did an on-screen graphic, that a USA Today/Gallup poll had found that  "61 percent" of Americans were in favor of taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions.

• In Fact, Fox Aired The Results Backward. In fact, the Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans were opposed to "a law similar to [the] proposal in Wisconsin." In the final minute of the broadcast, Kilmeade issued a correction, saying, "I had it reversed." [Media Matters, 2/23/11]

... And Attacking His Critics

Fox & Friends Hosted WI GOP Politician To Misinform About Walker's Anti-Union Legislation. On June 16, 2011, Fox & Friends hosted Glenn Grothman, a Republican state senator in Wisconsin, to promote Walker's anti-union bill and to misleadingly suggest that the legal challenges to the bill simply involved state employees' contributions to their pensions.

• In Fact, Controversy Surrounding Bill Sparked By Cutting Workers' Collective Bargaining Rights; Unions Agreed To Pension Cuts. In fact, protests over the bill and legal challenges to it centered around provisions that stripped most public workers' rights to collective bargaining; and union leaders had already agreed to pension and health care cuts before the bill was passed. [Media Matters, 6/16/11]

Fox & Friends Falsely Portrayed WI Protesters As "Violent." During the protests at the Wisconsin statehouse over Walker's proposal to end collective bargaining rights for public employees, Fox & Friends repeatedly attacked protesters opposing Walker's proposal. On the March 3, 2011, edition of the show, Kilmeade introduced a segment on Grothman being heckled by a chanting crowd of protesters by claiming the protesters were "getting restless and, dare I say, violent." Doocy said, "When you look at that and all the incivility there, you realize that to these people, elections have no consequence, mean nothing." The co-hosts later interviewed Grothman; Doocy asked him, "Were you scared?"

• There Was No Evidence Of Violence On The Video, And Photographer Who Shot It Slammed Fox's Coverage. The full 12-minute video on YouTube showed that no violence occurred and that at times protesters chanted "peace" and "peaceful." The photographer who shot the footage said he "condem[ned]" Fox's "use of my work to distort the truth." [Media Matters, 3/3/11]

In a January 18 editorial arguing in support of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), The Wall Street Journal noted that the White House as well as "Wikipedia and many other websites" are opposed to the legislation. But the Journal ignored that many congressional Republicans and conservative organizations are also opposed to SOPA and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), the Senate version of the legislation.

WSJ: WH Is "Seconding The Protest" Of "Wikipedia And Many Other Websites" Against SOPA, PIPA

WSJ: "The White House Is Seconding The Protest" Of The Internet Community Against SOPA And PIPA. In a January 18 editorial arguing in support of SOPA, The Wall Street Journal noted that the White House "is seconding the protest" of the Internet community but did not note any Republican or conservative opposition. From the editorial:

Wikipedia and many other websites are shutting down today to oppose a proposal in Congress on foreign Internet piracy, and the White House is seconding the protest.

[...]

[T]he White House let it be known over the weekend in a blog post -- how fitting -- that it won't support legislation that "reduces freedom of expression" or damages "the dynamic, innovative global Internet," as if this describes the reality of Internet theft. President Obama has finally found a regulation he doesn't like, which must mean that the campaign contributions of Google and the Stanford alumni club are paying dividends. [The Wall Street Journal, 1/18/12]

But Many Congressional Republicans Also Oppose SOPA And PIPA ...

Politico: "Republican Sen. Scott Brown ... Announced On Twitter On Tuesday That He'd Vote Against ... [SOPA]." A January 17 Politico article reported:

Republican Sen. Scott Brown, locked in a re-election fight with Elizabeth Warren in Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he'd vote against the Senate's PROTECT IP Act and the House's Stop Online Piracy Act. [Politico, 1/17/12]

The Guardian: Rep. Issa Is "A California Republican Who Has Campaigned Against" SOPA. A January 17 Guardian article reported:

The [Progressive Change Campaign Committee] meeting was also addressed by congressman Darrell Issa, a Californian Republican who has campaigned against Sopa. Issa and senator Ron Wyden are proposing a Sopa alternative called the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, or the Open Act. "We expect to have more co-signers in the House than Sopa," he said.

He said the level of protest was compelling evidence that congress needed to slow down before passing any legislation. Pipa is expected to receive a vote on January 24. [The Guardian, 1/17/12]

Ryan: "I Do Not Support H.R. 3261 [SOPA] In Its Current Form And Will Oppose The Legislation Should It Come Before The Full House." In a January 9 press release, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) stated:

The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House. [House.gov, 1/9/12]

Rubio: Congress Should "Listen" To Critics And "Avoid Rushing Through A Bill That Could Have Many Unintended Consequences." A January 18 article in The Hill noted that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who had originally co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill, "dropped his support" for the Protect IP Act. From The Hill:

"Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy," Rubio wrote on his Facebook page. "Since then, we've heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences." [The Hill, 1/18/12]

DeMint: "I Oppose SOPA & PIPA." The Hill article also noted:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another popular Senate conservative, also announced his opposition to the bill on Wednesday.

"I support intellectual property rights, but I oppose SOPA & PIPA," he wrote on Twitter. "They're misguided bills that will cause more harm than good." [The Hill, 1/18/12]

Chaffetz: "At The Heart Of My Concern Is That There Are Some Deep-Seated Cybersecurity Concerns." In December 16, 2011, House testimony, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) noted:

At the heart of my concern is that there are some deep-seated cybersecurity concerns that have been expressed by a number of experts, people who are deeply involved in the technology and the development of the Internet.  I would encourage members on both sides of the aisle to look strongly at this amendment and what we are encouraging here because there are concerns, particularly -- the Internet is such an amazing tool.  It has done more things for our economy and for our ability to communicate globally.  I am confident that every one of these members, as we talk to them, the last thing you want to do is create a hole or do some surgery to the Internet that would hamper our ability to maintain the cybersecurity pipes, if you will, that are in place.

Chaffetz went on to state: "I hope, Mr. Chairman, that at the very least we have deep concerns about what this will do to cybersecurity in general." [Rep. Jason Chaffetz, House Testimony, 12/16/12, via ProPublica]

... As Well As Conservative Groups And Media Outlets

FreedomWorks: "SOPA And PIPA Would Destroy Internet Freedom." In a January 13 post on its website, the conservative group FreedomWorks wrote:

Two pieces of dangerous legislation are currently being debated in Congress that could forever change the Internet: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). The proponents of these harmful bills claim that it is necessary to stop online piracy, the illegal sale and/or distribution of copyrighted and trademarked products on the Internet. Regardless of how well-intentioned the pieces of legislation may be or one's perspective on intellectual property laws, SOPA and the Protect IP Act would severely cripple free speech and stifle innovation online.

[...]

SOPA and PIPA would undermine the free flow of information on the Internet. This could be a dangerous slippery slope in which the federal government seeks more and more control over the Internet. The Egyptian and Chinese governments have actually shut down citizen access to the Internet over the past few years. Every authoritarian government ultimately desires to have complete control of information and communication technologies.

Twenty-seven Republican lawmakers who strongly opposed net neutrality are strangely cosponsors of SOPA in the House or PIPA in the Senate. Yet, the proposed online piracy laws are equally as bad or perhaps even worse than net neutrality. SOPA and PIPA would disrupt the growth of technology and infringe on free speech. Any individual interested in preserving the freedom of the Internet should not support either version of this dangerous bill. [FreedomWorks, 1/13/12]

Heritage Action for America: SOPA And PIPA "Includes A Host Of Unintended And Dangerous Consequences." In a January 17 post, Heritage Action for America, a project of the conservative group The Heritage Foundation, made SOPA and PIPA "key vote[s]," writing:

Although no action is imminent, the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R.3261), known as SOPA, and the Protect IP Act (S.968), known as PIPA, remain a priority for many in Congress. Both SOPA and PIPA purport to stop the theft of intellectual property from foreign-based websites. While well-intentioned, the manner in which these bills attempt to achieve those goals is unworkable and includes a host of unintended and dangerous consequences.

[...]

While the federal government does have a role in protecting intellectual property rights, it should do so in a way that does not weaken internet security, disrupt growth or restrict free speech rights. To date, SOPA and PIPA fail to meet that standard. [Heritage Action for America, 1/17/12, emphasis in original]

Hot Air: SOPA And PIPA Are "A Seriously Misguided Effort To Protect Intellectual Rights." In a January 18 post on the conservative blog Hot Air, Ed Morrissey wrote:

Today, we interrupt this feature to remind people to call their elected officials in Congress to oppose the SOPA and PIPA bills.  We aren't going to take the site dark today, as some of our on-line colleagues will as a reminder of the power that SOPA and PIPA would give the federal government to shut down websites with no due process.  We think it's too important to keep exercising our freedom of speech, but still definitely salute those who are reminding us in their silence all to take action against a seriously misguided effort to protect intellectual rights -- a worthwhile goal, but not at the expense of putting government in the position of acting as a prior-restraint gatekeeper outside of the normal due process afforded by the courts. [Hot Air, 1/18/12]

RedState: "Stop Both Pieces Of Legislation Before It Is Too Late." On January 18, Erick Erickson, founder of the conservative blog RedState, froze new content on his website in protest of SOPA and PIPA, writing:

Today many websites around the world are shutting down to protest the potential effects of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, Protect IP.

At RedState, we are temporarily suspending publication of new content today to oppose SOPA and PROTECT IP.

Both pieces of legislation are overly broad and give too much power to the Attorney General to shut down websites that may be innocent of piracy, but are accused of being engaged in online piracy.

[...]

Stop both pieces of legislation before it is too late. [RedState, 1/18/12]

Internet And Technology Experts Also Oppose SOPA/PIPA

Eighty-Three "Prominent Internet Inventors And Engineers" Petitioned Congress To Oppose SOPA And PIPA. In an open letter to Congress, "a group of 83 prominent Internet inventors and engineers" opposed "the SOPA and PIPA Internet blacklist bills that are under consideration in the House and Senate respectively." From the letter:

We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.

Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation. Today, we are writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate. In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to read last year.

[...]

The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central position in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside. [Open Letter to Congress, 12/15/11, via the Electronic Frontier Foundation]

Seventeen Founders And Co-Founders Of Major Websites "Urge[d] Congress To Think Hard Before Changing The Regulation That Underpins The Internet." In another open letter to Congress, 17 founders and co-founders of websites and programs such as Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo, YouTube, and Craigslist wrote an open letter to Congress opposing SOPA and PIPA From the letter:

We've all had the good fortune to found Internet companies and nonprofits in a regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.

However, we're worried that the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act -- which started out as well-meaning efforts to control piracy online -- will undermine that framework. [Open Letter to Congress, 12/14/11]

Google's Sergey Brin: "I Am Shocked That Our Lawmakers Would ... Put Us On A Par With The Most Oppressive Nations In The World." According to a December 15, 2011, Washington Post article, Google co-founder Sergey Brin "liken[ed] the proposal to Internet censorship practices in China and Iran." From The Washington Post:

"Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States. Two bills currently making their way through congress -- SOPA and PIPA -- give the U.S. government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial)," Brin wrote. "While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world." [The Washington Post, 12/15/11]

Google's Eric Schmidt: "The Solutions Are Draconian." Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt also expressed opposition to the bill, calling it "draconian." A November 15, 2011, Reuters article further quoted Schmidt as saying, "There's a bill that would require (Internet service providers) to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked." [Reuters, 11/15/11]

New York Tech Meetup Calls On Members To Protest Legislation. The New York Times' Bits blog reported on January 18:

On Wednesday, as several sites around the Web participated in virtual protests in opposition to the Congressional antipiracy bills, tech communities around the United States are taking their demonstrations offline and into the real world.

Beginning around 12:30 p.m. Eastern time, the New York Tech Meetup, an eight-year-old trade organization that has nearly 20,000 members, is calling for those who oppose the proposed bills to gather in Midtown Manhattan outside of the offices of Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand, who co-sponsored some of the proposed legislation.

As of Tuesday, more than 1,100 people had RSVP'd to the New York event, which is open and available to the public, said Jessica Lawrence, the managing director of the group. [The New York Times, 1/18/12]

Conservative media figures have begun to claim that income inequality isn't a problem in America because people can move up and down the income ladder. In fact, income mobility in this country has declined in recent decades and is lower here than in many developed European countries.

Conservatives Argue That Income Mobility Negates The Problem Of Inequality ...

Limbaugh Falsely Claims Inequality Isn't Rising And Says, "You Know, People Move In And Out Of These Financial Categories Constantly." From Rush Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: Five states have lower unemployment than Iowa's 5.7 percent rate. New Hampshire is one of them. New Hampshire is also a state where the economy and particularly jobs are not number one at the top of the list.

Now, some people might say, "Well, that's no good. For crying out loud, that is the issue with everybody around the country.' Jobs. There's so many myths. The income gap getting wider -- it isn't. The rich getting richer -- they aren't. You know, people move in and out of all these financial categories constantly. They're all fluid. But you've got the first two states here that do not fit the mold of what the presidential campaign is going to focus on, and that's the economy. So ObamaCare is an issue. Government size, government reach have been issues in Iowa. But the economy isn't. Well, how relative is that, then? [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/3/12]

Click here for the truth about the increase in income inequality.

Fox's Gutfeld: "There's So Much Income Mobility In This Country, We've Replaced Income Mobility With Income Inequality." From Fox News' The Five:

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (co-host): Pew did a survey kind of about the conflict between the rich and the poor. And three in 10 Americans, 30 percent, say there are very strong conflicts between poor people and rich people. And further, 46 percent, a plurality, believe that most rich people are wealthy mainly because they know the right people or they were born into very wealthy families. So, you know -- but a lot of them, 43 percent, have a favorable view of people who [unintelligible]

DANA PERINO (co-host): They want to be them.

GREG GUTFELD (co-host): The weird thing about this conflict -- and it's a new conflict because the race card isn't working anymore -- is now the rich card. And they're tr-- it's a phenomenon that's endemic in capitalism, and that in when new people arrive to your country, they have less than the people that are already here. That's capitalism. And then they move -- as they move out, new people move in.

BOB BECKEL (co-host): If -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.

ERIC BOLLING (co-host): No, I'm just -- I'm trying to figure out how Obama is all of a sudden the guy for the, you know, the 99 percent. He's got a quarter of a billion dollars in the coffer already, he hangs out with millionaires and billionaires, he spends 10 days in Hawaii, 14 days in Martha's Vineyard, 15 days a couple of months ago -- back. Please.

GUILFOYLE: Seventy-three fundraisers.

BOLLING: He's of the 1 percent or the 99?

BECKEL: You know, you actually need money to run campaigns, it may surprise you, particularly this time around. But if you read that Pew research report, what it says is that the middle class is rebelling. It became a big issue. It jumped 20 points, and it jumped particularly among independents and Democrats who believe that the rich get an unfair advantage in the capitalist system.

GUTFELD: Because the media and the Democrats are pushing class warfare.

BECKEL: Well, good. That's fine, if it's working.

GUTFELD: Even if it's not true?

PERINO: But working for what, to achieve what?

BECKEL: It is true.

GUTFELD: Even if there's so much income mobility in this country, we've replaced income mobility with income inequality.

BECKEL: The most people believe what is true, and that is that hedge fund operators and others get an advantage over the average person. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/12]

O'Reilly Uses Sports Salaries To Explain Income Inequality; Dick Morris Touts "Upward Mobility" As Contrast To Inequality. From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

DICK MORRIS (Fox News political analyst): In 1980 before Reagan took office, those -- the top one percent was making less than 10 percent of the income. Now, they are making close to 40 percent of the income. I'm sorry they were making about 20 percent of the income. Now they are making close to 40 percent.

BILL O'REILLY (host): It's doubled. But -- but the world has changed since 1980. It's a global economy now.

Look, all you have to do is look at professional sports and how the salaries for the superstars are now off the charts Peyton Manning, for example, I mean somebody who can bring in fans and who can win games --

(CROSSTALK)

MORRIS: Right.

O'REILLY: -- is much more valuable in 2011 than they were in 1980 because -- wait, wait, because of television, worldwide cable, Internet, all of these things make very few people very valuable. And -- and this is not getting across. The economics of capitalism have changed with the technology that makes success so pervasive.

MORRIS: But there's a very -- I agree with that but there is a very important point that's lost in this. They divide the country into the top fifth, middle, middle, middle and bottom fifth. And the liberal groups say the top fifth has gotten richer and the bottom fifth has dropped or stayed the same. But it's a new bottom fifth.

They did a study in 1990 where they took the people that were in the bottom fifth. And said where were they 10 years later. Only 16 percent of them was still in the bottom fifth; 18 percent were in the top fifth.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Yes, capitalism gives people the opportunity.

MORRIS: And the rest were in the individual upward mobility.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

MORRIS: The poor are getting poorer but they are poor, they are new immigrants.

O'REILLY: Now, is this going to be a problem, this so-called income distribution which we shattered but people are still going to respond to it for the Republican Party which throws in with the top one percent? They throw in with them. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/26/11, transcript via Nexis]

... Or That Mobility In America Is Higher Than In Other Comparable Economies ...

Hoover Institution Fellow Shelby Steele In WSJ: "America Has More Social Mobility Than Any Heterogeneous Society In History." From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Shelby Steele, senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution:

How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.

[...]

Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest -- in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy? [The Wall Street Journal, 5/25/11]

... Or Admit That Mobility Has Declined, But Blame It On Obama

Big Government: "Three Years Into America's Managerial State Experiment, The Middle Class Is In Revolt Over Loss Of Upward Mobility." From Andrew Breitbart's Big Government:

C.S. Lewis remarked that every increase in man's power over nature can turn out to mean an increase in the power of some men over others, with nature as its instrument. He stated:

"Given technological progress, we need to fight hard to retain our clarity about the nature and rights of human beings. We hear of human "autonomy" and of man's "control of his own destiny." But the autonomy is enjoyed by a select (or self-selected) few, and the control is exercised by a shrinking elite."

Three years into America's managerial state experiment, the middle class is in revolt over loss of upward mobility.

They see the stimulus programs as rewarding the elites and pacifying the poor. The middle class already had healthcare through employment and was looking for infrastructure to actually drive on. After $4 trillion in deficit spending there is no million-man construction cycle building new inter-state freeways, hydro-electric dams or Keystone XL Pipeline. What there has been is Goldman Sachs bail-outs and Solyndra et al crony capitalism. The middle class has continued to be punished with loss of their life savings as real estate prices continue to fall.

Over the last 30 years since Ronald Reagan refocused nation state competition onto the market; communism and fascism have gone into the dust bowl of history, while the U.S. economy grew from $2.8 trillion to over $15 trillion. The Obama Administration sought to transition Reagan's successful laissez-faire state into the European managerial market state, at just the wrong time. The middle class may see America as failing; but they see Europe as a failure. American families cringe when they watch television stories of endless platoons of German and French VIBs -- very important bureaucrats -- dutifully shoveling subsidies to rioting Portuguese, Italian, Greeks, and Spanish socialists. Having seen the future of the European managerial state; American families want a return Reagan's worldview of the laissez-faire market state as the vehicle of middle class upward mobility. [Big Government, 11/24/11]

Wash. Times' Kuhner: "The Engine Of Prosperity And Upward Mobility" Has Been "Savaged By Bureaucratic Sadism." From a column by Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times:

In addition, his administration's anti-business regulations -- discouraging offshore oil drilling, sanctioning Boeing for building a big plant in South Carolina, onerous labor and environmental mandates -- and virulent class warfare have undermined economic growth. His cynical decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline has cost more than 20,000 jobs. The private sector -- the engine of prosperity and upward mobility -- has been savaged by bureaucratic sadism. If Mr. Obama truly cared for working Americans, he would end his experiment in European-style socialism. [The Washington Times, 12/8/11]

Reality: Family Income Has Become More Likely To Depend On Starting Position; Mobility Hasn't Offset Rising Inequality

Boston Fed Economist: In Four Decades Concluding In 2006, "Family Income Mobility Across The Income Distribution Decreased" And "Families' Later-Year Incomes Increasingly Depended On Their Starting Place." From a working paper by Katharine Bradbury, senior economist and policy adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston:

Overall, the evidence indicates that over the 1969-to-2006 time span, family income mobility across the distribution decreased, families' later-year incomes increasingly depended on their starting place, and the distribution of families' lifetime incomes became less equal. [Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 10/20/11]

Boston Fed Economist: "A Family's Position At End Of A Period In The 2000s" Is "More Correlated With Its Start Position Than Was The Case 20 Years Ago." From the Boston Fed:

Long-term income adjusted for family size is considerably more unequally distributed among families for periods ending in the 2000s than for periods ending in the 1970s and '80s. That is, family income mobility has been insufficient to stem increases in inequality of long-term income.  Furthermore, other mobility measures indicate that a family's position at end of a period in the 2000s was less likely to have been produced by a random process and more correlated with its start position than was the case 20 years earlier. [Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 10/20/11]

Boston Fed Economist: Mobility "Has Not Been Sufficient To Offset The Considerable Rise In Short-Term Inequality." From the Boston Fed:

[A] key reason for studying mobility trends is a concern with lifetime income inequality.  Although the calculations reported here  track individuals over 10 years (far less than a lifetime), the distribution of long-term income (family income averaged over 10 years, or even 16 years) was much more unequal in recent periods than in the 1970s. The trend has been visibly steep, regardless of the inequality measure or income measure employed. Thus, whether the declines in measured mobility are significantly different from zero or not, mobility levels and trends have not been sufficient to offset the considerable rise in short-term inequality. [Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 10/20/11]

Boston Fed Economist: Comparison Of Mobility Trends Before And After Taxes And Transfers "Suggests" That Changes To These Policies Since 1981 Have Exacerbated Mobility Declines. From the Boston Fed paper:

By and large, different mobility measures and income measures yield similar pictures of mobility trends. Most mobility measures indicate that family income mobility was lower in more recent periods (the 1990s into the early 2000s) than in earlier periods. Comparing 1977-1987 or 1981-1991, when many of the measures peaked, with the most recent period (1995-2005), mobility declined to a statistically significant degree according to most measures, both overall and for  individuals beginning near the top or bottom of the income distribution. However, comparing periods ending in the most recent 10 or so years (1985-1995 through 1995-2005), depending on the mobility measure employed, trends are difficult to discern, except that mobility was lower in the last period (1995-2005 or 1996-2006) than in the period immediately 2before (1993-2003 or 1994-2004). Comparing these post-government trends with results based on pre-government income suggests that the redistributive impact of the U.S. tax and transfer system may have contributed more positively to mobility in the 1970s than it has since 1981 [Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 10/20/11]

Studies Show Mobility Is Lower In The United States Than In Many European Nations

Pew Economic Mobility Project: Americans "Less Mobile Than Many Of Their European Counterparts." From the Economic Mobility Project, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts:

In the Economic Mobility Project's latest public opinion poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans said they had already achieved, or expected to achieve, the American Dream at some point in their lives. The promise of upward mobility, regardless of one's starting point, sustains American optimism even in the face of national economic hardship.

However, several studies investigating economic mobility across a range of countries have found that Americans are less mobile than many of their European counterparts. Comparing rates of relative mobility across countries -- a measure of how likely a child's rank on the income distribution will mirror that of his or her parents' -- shows that Americans are more likely than citizens of several other nations to be stuck in the same position economically as their parents. [Pew Charitable Trusts, accessed 1/13/12]

Pew: Link Between Parents' Education And Children's Outcomes "Is Generally The Strongest In The United States." From the Economic Mobility Project:

In all countries, parental education predicts a range of childhood outcomes across the life course, but the degree varies across countries. The connection between parents' education and children's outcomes is generally the strongest in the United States for all categories measured. [Pew Charitable Trusts, accessed 1/13/12]

Pew: Better Policies Needed To Address Mobility, "Especially In The United States, Where The Relationship Between Parental Socioeconomic Advantage And Child Outcomes Is The Strongest." From the Economic Mobility Project:

Differences in mobility-relevant children's outcomes according to family background are established at very early ages -- as early as outcomes can be measured. Policies and institutions influence the magnitude of these initial gaps, since the strength of the relationship between family background and children's outcomes differs by country. However, within each country, once gaps were set, they did not decrease as children aged. The [Cross-National Research on Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage] studies demonstrate the need to develop more effective policies to narrow socioeconomic gaps and better realize the equality of opportunity that is so fundamental to economic mobility -- especially in the United States, where the relationship between parental socioeconomic advantage and child outcomes is the strongest. [Pew Charitable Trusts, accessed 1/13/12]

Brookings Scholar Sawhill: "I Don't Think You'll Find Too Many People Who Will Argue" With Idea That "U.S. Does Not Have As Much Mobility As Most Other Advanced Countries." From The New York Times:

"It's becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries," said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "I don't think you'll find too many people who will argue with that." [The New York Times, 1/5/12]

Fox & Friends claimed that the Obama administration is using the European economic crisis as "an excuse" to explain continued economic struggles in the U.S., saying that Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod is "totally wrong" to be concerned about "what happens in Europe." In fact, economists and experts agree that European recessions and the declining value of the euro are having a large negative impact on the U.S. economy -- as did other global events, like the earthquake in Japan and the Arab Spring.

Fox & Friends Claims Obama Admin. "Us[ing]" European Fiscal Crisis As "An Excuse" For Poor U.S. Economy

Varney: Axelrod Is "Totally Wrong" That "What Happens In Europe" Could Be Affecting U.S. Economy. On the January 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade began a segment by asking, "Are new economic downgrades in Europe setting the stage for the Obama administration to use that as an excuse for their poor record on the economy?" A clip was then aired showing Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod telling CNN's Candy Crowley that "external factors" such as "what happens in Europe" are concerns of the campaign. Fox Business host Stuart Varney responded by saying Axelrod was "totally wrong" to be concerned about Europe and claimed that Axelrod is "setting up an excuse for the poor economy." From the broadcast:

KILMEADE: Are new economic downgrades in Europe setting the stage for the Obama administration to use that as an excuse for their poor record on the economy?

[start video]

CROWLEY: Somebody in your campaign told me not that long ago, when I said, what do you most worry about in terms of campaign strategy? Is it Romney? Is it Gingrich? Is it -- and he said, no, it's the economy. Is that still -- hold true?

AXELROD: Well, I think external factors, what happens in Europe, you know, what happens in other places in the world, and frankly, the other thing that worries me are these big super PACs that we see Governor Romney and others benefitting from right now.

[end video]

ERIC BOLLING (guest host): And Stuart Varney joins us. What do you think of that little interchange between the talk show host and David Axelrod? And is he right?

VARNEY: David Axelrod is setting up an excuse for the poor performance of the U.S. economy as we go into the election. He's saying it's outside factors that lead to high unemployment, a weak economy and a housing crash.

KILMEADE: Is he wrong?

VARNEY: He's totally wrong. He's diverting attention from the failure of the president's policies on energy, on stimulus, on government spending, on the housing market. The president has failed in those areas. David Axelrod is trying to dress it up and excuse that failure by pointing to so-called outside factors.

[...]

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right. They just go back into the bag and bring out another thing to use.

VARNEY: Yeah. Give you three months, we'll find something else to blame. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/17/12]

Varney Also Complained Obama Administration Blamed "The [Japanese] Tsunami" And "The Arab Spring." Also during the January 17 broadcast, Varney complained that the Obama administration "divert[ed] attention from ... a failed economic policy" by blaming "the tsunami" in Japan and "the Arab Spring." From Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: Well, this isn't the first time that they've done this.

VARNEY: No, it wasn't. Last year it was the tsunami and before that, it was the Arab Spring. Now, it's Europe. It diverts attention from what has been, in my opinion, a failed economic policy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/17/12]

In Fact, Experts Agree The European Crisis Could Have "Grave" Effects On The U.S.

AP: "Europe's Sputtering Growth Is Already Dragging On Some U.S. Companies' Profits And Could Further Slow The U.S. Economy." A November 13, 2011, Associated Press (AP) article stated that the "European Union is the No. 1 U.S. trading partner." The article went on to cite a Wells Fargo estimate that "the U.S. economy will grow 2.1 percent next year, 0.4 percentage point lower because of Europe's slowdown" and also noted that Goldman Sachs has predicted that Europe's "slowdown could shave a full percentage point off U.S. growth." From the article:

The tremors from Europe's financial upheaval have reached U.S. shores, rattling consumers and companies.

The consequences have been limited so far. Yet the United States and Europe are so closely linked that any slowdown across the Atlantic is felt here. U.S. makers of cars, solar panels, drugs, clothes and computer equipment have all reported effects from Europe's turmoil.

Worries that Europe's crisis could worsen and spread are spooking investors and consumers just as the holiday shopping season nears. Some fear U.S. consumers could rein in spending. Europe's sputtering growth is already dragging on some U.S. companies' profits and could further slow the U.S. economy.

The crisis "seems to be coming to a head right at the time the U.S. economy is at its most vulnerable," said Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo.

[...]

The European Union is the No. 1 U.S. trading partner. Nearly $475 billion in goods crossed between the regions in the first nine months of 2011. About 14 percent of revenue for the 500 biggest U.S. companies -- roughly $1.3 trillion -- comes from Europe.

The U.S. economy is especially vulnerable to the European crisis because it's growing so weakly and facing other risks, such as weak hiring, stagnant pay, high energy costs, a wide trade deficit and potentially steep government spending cuts.

"It won't take much to tip us into another recession," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University, Channel Islands. "If Europe gets into any deeper trouble, it will take us and the rest of the world down, too."

[...]

Wells Fargo estimates that the U.S. economy will grow 2.1 percent next year, 0.4 percentage point lower because of Europe's slowdown. Goldman Sachs thinks the region's slowdown could shave a full percentage point off U.S. growth.

Even if Europe doesn't fall into a downturn, its turmoil is affecting U.S companies and consumers in several ways:

• Stock-market gyrations unsettle consumers and make them more cautious about spending.
• U.S. companies with big European operations are suffering from lower sales, prices and profits.
• Banks worldwide are cutting lending and hoarding cash to create more cushion for potentially deep losses on their holdings of Greek, Italian and other government debt. U.S. and overseas banks are keeping about $1.57 trillion in reserves at the Federal Reserve -- a jump of nearly $580 billion in the past year.
• Uncertainty about how much damage Europe could cause is making corporations reluctant to spend their piles of cash to hire and invest. [AP, 11/13/11, via MSNBC.com]

Bernanke: "I Don't Think We Would Be Able To Escape The Consequences Of A Blow-Up In Europe." A November 13, 2011, Reuters article about U.S. efforts to "safeguard its financial system from a worsening of Europe's debt crisis" estimated that U.S. financial institutions might have over "$4 trillion" of direct and indirect "bank exposure" to European countries. The article also noted, "A Fed survey last week showed that about half the top U.S. banks had loans to European banks or were extending credit to them. If European banks ran into trouble and were unable to repay their loans, U.S. banks could face sizable losses." From the article:

The United States is ramping up attempts to safeguard its financial system from a worsening of Europe's debt crisis, joining nations in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere in trying to build firewalls.

U.S. policymakers, alarmed by the political upheaval in Italy and Greece, are digging deep into the books of American banks to find out how exposed they might be to euro zone creditors and the plunging value of sovereign debt.

Officials were stung by the implosion of Wall Street firm MF Global, which gambled and lost on European debt, and they are working on contingency plans for a worst-case scenario should another financial firm crumble.

[...]

While the Treasury has been at pains to say that direct U.S. bank exposure to European countries now receiving bailout aid -- Greece, Ireland and Portugal -- is moderate, once the debt of Italy and Spain, plus credit default swaps, and U.S. bank indirect exposure through European banks are added, the potential sum could exceed $4 trillion.

"As such, the potential for contagion to the U.S. financial system is not small," the Institute of International Finance, the lobby group for major international banks, said last week.

[...]

There is a secondary level of exposure that is potentially more worrying -- through international banks lending to each other. Here the greatest risk stems from Italy and France. International bank claims on Italy total $939 billion, and French banks account for well over one-third of that, BIS data show. French banks also rely heavily on short-term loans from other international banks for their daily operations. If Italian debt slumps even further, causing deeper losses for French banks, international banks could stop lending to France. The losses would ripple through the whole global financial system.

The United States learned the hard way how these indirect financial linkages work when imploding credit default swaps forced it into a $180 billion bailout of insurance giant American International Group (AIG.N) in 2008 to prevent further contagion in the banking sector.

[...]

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was frank last week about the risks: "It is not something that we would be insulated from ... I don't think we would be able to escape the consequences of a blow-up in Europe."

[...]

A Fed survey last week showed that about half the top U.S. banks had loans to European banks or were extending credit to them. If European banks ran into trouble and were unable to repay their loans, U.S. banks could face sizable losses. [Reuters, 11/13/11]

Wash. Post: "The Ripples" Of Europe's Banking Crisis "Have Spread All The Way To The United States." From a December 9, 2011, Washington Post article:

The ripples have spread all the way to the United States.

"You're seeing banks walking away from real estate commitments here," said a senior U.S. investment banker for real estate who asked for anonymity to protect his business relationships. "It's like a weight loss program. Only the Germans want you to go on a fasting program right now."

Standard & Poor's says it assigned ratings to two U.S. power plant developments that were delayed by several months because the developers were worried about lining up financing given the "choppy" European markets. A U.S. private equity firm says it pulled back from a major U.S. investment at the last moment because the company sells goods to Europe and economic conditions there are so uncertain.

"It was too much exposure to Europe," a person familiar with the deal said on the condition of anonymity to protect business relationships.

[...]

That could mean months of slow lending that resembles the dearth of financing that contributed to the recession that hit in the United States in 2008. An economic slowdown in Europe could be grave. Banco Santander reported its first-ever quarterly loss for operations in Portugal, for example, and expects to shrink lending in Spain. A Citigroup report pointed to "a contraction in loans and margins" in the Iberian peninsula. [The Washington Post, 12/9/11]

Wash. Post: Princeton Economist Shin Says European Banks "Could Do A Lot More Damage Than Expected" To The U.S. A December 22, 2011, Washington Post article contained interviews with several leading economists about the "effect of [the] European banking crisis on [the] U.S." While some economists remained optimistic that the effects would be limited, many others were "pessimists," with one predicting that European banks could "do a lot more damage than expected as they pull back" and another estimating that a slowdown in the euro-zone "could shave 1 percentage point off of U.S. economic growth over the next year." From the Post:

As European banks unwind, will the U.S. recovery come undone?

That's what U.S. economists are trying to figure out as European banks, scrambling to strengthen their balance sheets, cut back on lending to American businesses and households.

Princeton University economist Hyun Song Shin said in a recent paper that European banks have played a much bigger role in the U.S. economy than has been generally thought -- and could do a lot more damage than expected as they pull back.

Shin says European banks grew not only by making direct loans to U.S. businesses but also by sucking up vast U.S. money-market deposits and purchasing U.S. mortgage securities. During the previous decade, "European banks may have played a pivotal role in influencing credit conditions in the United States," and that helped fuel the U.S. housing and financial bubble, Shin argued in a recent paper.

But now it could hurt the U.S. recovery as European banks shrink and bolster their capital reserves. "The European crisis of 2011 and the associated deleveraging of the European global banks will have far reaching implications not only for the eurozone, but also for credit supply conditions in the United States and capital flows to the emerging economies," Shin wrote in a paper presented at an International Monetary Fund conference in November and which has been widely read among economists.

The vast extent of those European bank obligations to U.S. institutions, or counter-parties, helps explain U.S. policymakers' anxiety as they watch European leaders try to head off a crisis like the one that followed the Lehman Brothers failure in the United States in 2008.

[...]

Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius is among the pessimists. He says the slowdown in the euro-zone economy could shave 1 percentage point off of U.S. economic growth over the next year, with about half of that a direct result of a pullback by European banks.

Foreign banks' branches account for about one-fifth of all commerical [sic] and industrial lending in the United States, Hatzius wrote in a recent Goldman Sachs report. While domestic banks are easing lending standards, a recent Federal Reserve study showed that those foreign banks are tightening standards in the United States. Hatzius wrote that "some pullback is indeed visible" already.

[...]

Other U.S. economists are more sanguine.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, said there were signs that some European banks were tightening lending standards in the United States as well as abroad, but he said "the damage might be limited because the U.S. banks are filling the void." [The Washington Post, 12/22/11]

Even The Conservative Heritage Foundation Says European Economic Woes Contribute To "Bad Uncertainty" In U.S.

Heritage Foundation: "The Issue Is Global Financial Interconnectedness ... A Major U.S. Trading Partner Will Be In A Slump, And So U.S. Exports To Europe Will Suffer." From a September 23, 2011, report published by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank:

Five years ago, one might have viewed the European financial crisis, that is, the existential threat to European financial institutions and markets, as mostly a European affaire. To be sure, American financial institutions hold some of this dodgy European debt, as well. There have even been stories that super-safe money market funds have loaded up on scary levels of high-yielding Greek debt. But, on balance, one would have thought a financial contagion in Europe would be stopped at water's edge. Five years ago, the Europeans thought the same thing about the then-rumored U.S. subprime mortgage fiasco about to unfold.

The issue is global financial interconnectedness. This is where matters get murky. No one, including the participants and including the financial regulators, really knows or understands all the connections, or all the weaknesses. We know in great detail, for example, how much foreign debt by country each of our banks own. But for years the Europeans have assured the world their true exposure to sovereign debt risk was limited because they had hedged their positions with credit default swaps (CDS). Note, however, that CDS do not eliminate risk but merely shift it. To whom? No one really knows.

[...]

As these events unfold, the essential consequence for the United States economy is a large dose of bad uncertainty. Bad uncertainty is analogous to bad cholesterol. It builds up and creates economic blockages. In the economic sphere, this shows up as decisions delayed or downscaled, decisions that under normal times would produce the actions that produce growth. Europe is clearly adding to the headwinds facing the economy today.

[...]

The depth and length of the recession in each country will vary, but none will be immune. Many of these countries suffered poorly performing economies before the crisis. For the United States the implications if not the magnitudes are clear - a major U.S. trading partner will be in a slump, and so U.S. exports to Europe will suffer.

If the U.S. economy were in good shape, a drop in exports would simply be another headwind to be overcome. In 1997, during the Asian economic crisis, the U.S. experienced an event similar in nature if not magnitude, but the U.S. economy was reasonably strong and accelerating and so the headwinds from the Asian crisis were essentially imperceptible in the aggregate.

Unfortunately, rather than strengthening, the U.S. economy today is flat on its back, and facing the very real possibility of yet another recession even without the headwinds of Europe. President Obama's economic policies have failed utterly and completely. Mounting a sustained, robust, job-creating U.S. recovery under the circumstances will prove very difficult. [Heritage Foundation, 9/23/11]

And Last Year, Experts Agreed Tsunami, Arab Spring "Stifled" U.S. "Economic Growth"

Experts Agree "Economic Growth Was Stifled By Temporary Factors" Such As Japanese Earthquake And "Arab Spring." Experts widely agreed that global events such as the March 2011 earthquake in Japan and the Arab Spring had an effect on global economic activity. An August 2011 article on CNN Money noted, "In the first quarter [of 2011], economic growth was stifled by temporary factors, including supply disruptions stemming from the Japan earthquake and a spike in gasoline prices following the Arab Spring political uprisings." [Media Matters, 8/26/11]

Fox News' Eric Bolling falsely asserted that President Obama is "usurping Congress for more executive privilege" in seeking the authority to consolidate federal agencies. In fact, Obama is requesting this authority from Congress, and presidents from Franklin Roosevelt through Ronald Reagan had the same authority -- to fast-track congressional votes on executive-branch consolidation proposals from the president.

Bolling: Obama Is "Usurping Congress"

Bolling: "Power-Grabber In Chief" Wants "More Executive Power, Scary Power." From Fox News' The Five:

BOLLING: Be scared, be very scared. It's Friday the 13th, and the power-grabber in chief took this day to ask for more executive power, scary power. Listen.

[...]

BOLLING: Bob, I'm not sure what's more outrageous, Obama usurping Congress for more executive privilege or Obama attacking Romney out of the left side of his mouth and copying him out of the right side of his mouth. [Fox News, The Five, 1/13/12]

Reality: Asking Congress For More Authority Is The Opposite Of "Usurping" Congress

Politico: Authority Obama Is Seeking -- Which Congress Must Grant Him -- Would Require Subsequent Congressional Approval Of Any Consolidation Proposals. From Politico:

The president would request fast-track consolidation authority that would allow him to propose agency mergers that would then be subject to an up-or-down vote from Congress within 90 days. Under the terms of the president's proposal, lawmakers would still need to grant the president the fast-track authority and approve each of his proposals. [Politico, 1/13/12]

Wash. Post: Presidents From FDR To Reagan Previously Held The Same Power. From The Washington Post:

Under the plan, Obama is seeking broad consolidation authority, which had been granted to the White House by Congress during the Great Depression but was taken away from President Ronald Reagan in after a sunset provision in the law kicked in, in 1984. [The Washington Post, 1/13/12]

Bolling: "He's Breaking The Law Of The Land"

Bolling: Obama Said He Would "Do It No Matter What." From The Five:

BOLLING: Kimberly, let me just read this real quick. This is a little further on in the speech today -- that piece that we cut was from the speech. He said, "With or without Congress, I'm going to keep at it, but it would be a lot easier if Congress helped." Meaning, he's going to do it no matter what. Is it -- I mean, he's breaking the law of the land. [Fox News, The Five, 1/13/12]

Reality: Obama Said He Planned To Take Action "With My Current Authority"

Obama: "I'm Going To Keep Doing Everything I Can With My Current Authority To Help." From Obama's January 13 speech announcing his request:

This should not be a partisan issue.  Congress needs to reinstate this authority that has in the past been given to Democratic and Republican presidents for decades.  In the meantime, as long as folks are looking for work and small businesses are looking for customers, I'm going to keep doing everything I can with my current authority to help.

So, to take one example, as of today, I am elevating the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level agency.  (Applause.)  Karen Mills, who's here today and who's been doing an outstanding job leading that agency, is going to make sure that small business owners have their own seat at the table in our Cabinet meetings.

In the coming weeks, we're also going to unveil a new website -- Business USA.  And this site will be a one-stop shop for small businesses and exporters, and it will consolidate information that right now is spread across all these various sites so that it's all in one place and it's easy to search.

So with or without Congress, I'm going to keep at it.  But it would be a lot easier if Congress helped.  (Laughter.)  This is an area that should receive bipartisan support, because making our government more responsive and strategic and leaner, it shouldn't be a partisan issue. [WhiteHouse.gov, 1/13/12 (emphasis added)]

In a misleading segment painting a skewed picture of the Department of Energy's clean tech investments, CBS News' new morning show purported to reveal 11 "New Solyndras" -- companies CBS said "are having trouble" or "have filed for bankruptcy" after receiving federal assistance. But CBS only identified 7 companies and included some that did not actually get federal funds.

CBS Fails In Attempt To Identify "New Solyndras"

CBS Provides Faulty List Of "New Solyndras." From the January 13 edition of CBS News' This Morning, which debuted this week:

CHARLIE ROSE, CO-HOST: A CBS News investigation has found a pattern of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy. Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson is here with the story that you will only see on CBS This Morning.

[...]

SHARYL ATTKISSON, CORRESPONDENT: We counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: the junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, AES subsidiary Eastern Energy, and Solyndra. Others are also struggling with potential problems. [CBS News, This Morning, 1/13/12]

In addition to Solyndra, CBS named 7 not 11 companies during the report: Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, AES, Nevada Geothermal, SunPower, and First Solar. CBS then misrepresented the facts about most of these companies. Throughout the segment, the on-screen text stated "New Solyndras: Taxpayer Money To 11 Troubled Companies."

Right-Wing Media Repeated The Flawed CBS Report. [Fox Nation, 1/13/12] [Human Events, 1/13/12] [Hot Air, 1/13/12] [Newsbusters, 1/13/12] *UPDATED (1/17): [Fox News, On The Record, 1/13/12][Big Government, 1/16/12][Townhall, 1/13/12][The New American, 1/15/12]

CBS Report Filled With Errors And Misleading Omissions

AES Coal Power Subsidiary Went Bankrupt -- Not The Project Funded By DOE. The Associated Press reported on January 3 that AES Eastern Energy, a subsidiary of the huge global power company AES Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. AP noted:

AES Corp., based in Arlington, Va., said the bankruptcy wouldn't impact its bottom line in 2011 and didn't revise its profit estimates for the year. It will report its fourth-quarter and full-year financial results in February.

AES Eastern Energy operates four coal-fired power plants that were acquired from New York State Electric & Gas in 1999. Its business has struggled with low profit margins because of the high cost of coal and a decline in power prices. [Associated Press, 1/3/12]

• Loan Guarantee Went To A Separate Subsidiary Of AES For An Energy Storage System. The $17.1 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy went to AES Energy Storage LLC, a subsidiary of AES Corp, to "support the construction of a 20 megawatt (MW) energy storage system using advanced lithium-ion batteries" in Johnson City, New York.  [Department of Energy, 12/23/10]

NRG Energy -- Not SunPower -- Is Responsible For The Loan. CBS reported that "Sunpower landed a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall ... On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth." In fact, NRG Energy, Inc. bought the project, the California Valley Solar Ranch, shortly before the DOE loan guarantee was finalized. The Contra Costa Times reported that NRG is responsible for paying back the loan:

Industry analysts say San Jose-based SunPower is struggling but nowhere near bankruptcy, and they describe the loan guarantee as low-risk for taxpayers. More significantly, Carlsbad-based NRG Energy, not SunPower, is on the hook to repay the loan, according to company representatives. NRG bought the project before the federal backing came through, although SunPower will design and build the solar farm in San Luis Obispo County. [Contra Costa Times, 10/18/11]

• Risk To Taxpayers Is Low Because The Solar Project Already Has A Buyer. The Contra Costa Times article further noted that "Pacific, Gas and Electric Co. signed a long-term fixed-price contract to buy the power" from the project. The article quoted independent energy analyst Daniel Ries, who stated: "The risk to taxpayers is very low ... This loan guarantee is for a specific project using known technology that has a cash flow to pay off the debt." [Contra Costa Times, 10/18/11]

First Solar Also Sold DOE-Backed Projects To Other Companies. CBS stated that "First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011, and its CEO was cut loose, even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans." In fact, First Solar sold those three projects "to NRG Energy, Exelon and NextEra Energy Resources and project partner GE Energy Financial Services," according to Electric Utility Week, which also stated that "The sale of the projects that recently received over $3 billion in loan guarantees from DOE means the utilities are on the hook to repay the loans." [Electric Utility Week, 10/24/11, via Nexis]

• The Projects Are Low Risk. As Dow Jones reported, "All those facilities have power purchase agreements with California utilities, which are required to use renewable power generation for one-third of the electricity they sell by 2020, as part of the state's 2006 plan to combat climate change." [Dow Jones Newswires, 12/7/11]

Evergreen Solar Received No Federal Money. Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar filed for bankruptcy in August 2011. But Evergreen Solar did not receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Evergreen did receive $43 million in assistance from the Massachusetts government, but according to the New York Times, the company received no federal money. [Media Matters, 1/15/11]

Spectra Watt Did Not Receive A Loan Guarantee, But A Small Grant. In 2009, SpectraWatt was selected to receive a $500,000 grant from the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) PV Technology Pre-Incubator program, not a loan guarantee like Solyndra. SpectraWatt later filed for bankruptcy. [Spectra Watt, 6/17/09]

Boston Globe: Beacon Power Selling Plant To "Quickly Pay Off" DOE Loan Guarantee. In an article titled, "As federal funds dry up, Beacon Power still has reason for hope," The Boston Globe reported:

Beacon, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, recently agreed to sell a first-of-its-kind energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., to quickly pay off a $39.1 million loan balance it owes the US Department of Energy. The sale will leave Beacon Power with its technology and manufacturing capabilities, analysts said, but also with a question that many alternative energy firms may face as deep federal budget cuts loom as early as next year. Can the company attract enough private capital to stay afloat? [Boston Globe, 11/27/11]

Default Rate For Loan Guarantee Program Is Much Less Than What Government Budgeted For Losses. Bloomberg reported that the government "planned for defaults of as much as 12.85 percent" for the loan guarantee program, and that as of now, the default rate "is less than 3.6 percent. CBS did not mention this fact. [Bloomberg News, 11/10/11]

Most Of The Loans Guarantees Have Almost No Risk Of Default. To date CBS has not covered a Bloomberg Government analysis of the Department of Energy's 1705 loan guarantee program, which found that 87 percent of the value of all the 1705 loan guarantees (18 of the 28 projects) went to power generation projects, as opposed to manufacturing projects like Solyndra's factory. The flawed CBS report mentioned several of these projects among the purported "New Solyndras." The DOE required generation projects to secure a buyer before receiving a loan guarantee -- ensuring stable revenue and significantly reducing the risk of the investment. In fact, Shayle Kann, a solar power market expert at GTM Research, has said that these projects have almost no risk of default. [Media Matters, 12/6/11]

CBS Featured Pundit Misrepresenting Steven Chu's Background, Role. CBS apparently only interviewed conservative economist Peter Morici for the report. Morici said: "Tasking a Nobel prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be the general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan. It's that absurd." [CBS, This Morning, 1/13/12]

• Chu Won The Nobel Prize For Physics, Not Math. Chu won the Nobel Prize in Physics and was "the Director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he led the lab in pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technologies." [Department of Energy, accessed 1/13/12]
• Actual Head Of The Loan Guarantee Office Was Former Venture Capitalist. Politico reported that Jonathan Silver, who was the head of the DOE loan programs office, was previously "was a managing director of Core Capital Partners, a early-stage investor in alternative energy technology, advanced manufacturing, telecommunications and software, which he co-founded in 1999." [Politico, 10/6/11]

CBS Forwards Claim That Solyndra Loan Was "Politically Motivated"

CBS Advances Claim That Solyndra "Was A Politically Motivated Investment." In her report, Attkisson stated that Solyndra "received a half billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment." [CBS News, This Morning, 1/13/12]

The Hill: "GOP Probe ... Has Not Uncovered Evidence" That The Loan "Showed Political Favoritism." The Hill reported:

But the GOP probe -- which has uncovered about 185,000 pages of documents -- has not uncovered evidence that the decision to issue the loan guarantee or the early 2011 decision to restructure its terms showed political favoritism. [The Hill, 1/13/12]

NYT: "No Evidence Has Emerged That Political Favoritism Played A Role" In Solyndra Loan. The New York Times reported:

While no evidence has emerged that political favoritism played a role in what administration officials assert were merit-based decisions, Solyndra drew plenty of high-level attention. [New York Times, 9/23/11, via Grist]

Politico: Solyndra Had "Close Ties To Both Political Parties." Politico reported:

In fact, Solyndra's top brass, its board and its paid lobbyists bring close ties to both political parties.

President and CEO Brian Harrison is a registered Republican. Billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign bundler, was one of the venture capitalists who poured private funding into the clean technology startup.

And another venture capital firm, Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the GOP-leaning Walton family, was one of 10 firms that helped Solyndra raise about $144 million in November 2008.

In Washington, Victoria Sanville, one of the company's two in-house lobbyists, had previously worked for four House Republicans: Sam Graves of Missouri, Peter Roskam of Illinois, John Sweeney of New York and George Gekas of Pennsylvania.

When it comes to campaign contributions, Solyndra officials gave much more to Democrats while still giving money to some Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of donation data compiled by OpenSecrets.org. [Politico, 9/14/11]

Bush Admin. Chose Solyndra As A Finalist For A Loan Guarantee. The Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. At a congressional hearing, Jonathan Silver, then-Executive Director of Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, testified that the Bush administration selected Solyndra as one of 16 out of 143 submissions to move forward in the process. [Media Matters, 9/19/11]

On her radio show, CNN contributor and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch cheered on an Internet video reportedly showing U.S. Marines urinating on what appear to be dead Afghans, saying she would "drop trou and do it too." The video has been widely condemned by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, U.S. military commanders, foreign policy experts and others as depicting conduct that "does not reflect our values" and may endanger Afghanistan peace talks.

CNN's Loesch Defends Video Of Marines Reportedly Urinating On Dead Taliban

Secretaries Of Defense And State, Military Commanders Condemn Tape As "Inconsistent With Our Values"

Conduct Will Be Investigated For Possible Violations Of U.S. And International Law

CNN National Security Experts Have Condemned Tape

Bush, Administration Officials Apologized For Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse: "A Stain On Our Country's Honor"

CNN's Loesch Joined By Pamela Geller In Defending Marines

CNN's Loesch Defends Video Of Marines Apparently Urinating On Dead Taliban

Video Posted Online Shows Marines Urinating On Bodies Of What Appears To Be Dead Afghans. From a January 12 CNN.com article:

The video shows four men dressed in Marine combat gear urinating on what appeared to be the dead bodies of three men on the ground in front of them.

One of the men says, "Have a great day, buddy." A voice asks, "You got it on the video?" to which another voice responds, "Yeah." Another jokes, "Golden, like a shower."

It was not clear who shot or posted the 39-second video or where, though a U.S. official said it was a "reasonable conclusion" it was filmed in Afghanistan. [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

Loesch: "I'd Drop Trou And Do It Too." From the January 12 edition of St. Louis-based KFTK's The Dana Show:

(h/t St. Louis Activist Hub and Twitter user @NicoleGenette)

LOESCH: All right, we got some cool points to get into, and then we are going to get some of your calls in as well. It's 'cause I've had a lot of caffeine. It's snowing here, folks. Cool points, we play audio and we award out points based upon its level of heinousness or awesomeness. All right, play audio sound bite two. And we're, I'm sure, going to be talking about this in the second hour as well.

Marines were -- there's a -- now, we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were Marines caught urinating on corpses -- Taliban corpses. Listen:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER [audio clip]: The U.S. Military is investigating a video showing what appears to be troops urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The footage of what seems to be U.S. Marines has been uploaded to several sites including video sharing site YouTube. The film could be another blow for America after previous scandals like the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib --

LOESCH: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was -- as part of an organization murdered over 3,000Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cool points.

LOESCH: What do you think this is? What do people think this is? I am totally not politically correct, I told you this. What -- do you think that we're going to sit down and have tea?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it's nothing compared to what happened in the prison in Iraq. That's different, completely different from when this -- 

LOESCH: Completely different story.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Completely different.

LOESCH: Yeah. Completely different story.  So they urinated on the corpse of a dead Taliban member, a dead terrorist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why did they film it?

LOESCH: They urinated on a  -- I don't know why. I don't get that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why?

LOESCH: I don't get that. But, sorry, that -- I don't -- do I have a problem with that as a citizen of the United States? No, I don't. Sorry, I don't. So, moving on. There's the end of that controversy right there. [The Dana Show, 1/12/12]

Loesch: "They're Dead Terrorists. I Could Care Less." From the January 12 edition of St. Louis-based KFTK's The Dana Show:

LOESCH: My whole entire point is that these individuals -- like they're using this example as an issue to wage against our military and our war -- or, no our military and our soldiers, period -- to make our military look like a bunch of murderers and a bunch of bad people. Look what -- no, no, no, no, no. That's not going to be used as an example to make our military look bad. I mean, this is -- that's what it is.

They're saying, Oh, look, this is our military. We've told you before how they're uneducated, and stupid, and everything else, you've heard callers call into this show that say, oh, the reason they go in the military is because they can't get a job anywhere else. It's infuriating. It's insulting. And I'm not going to let that be used as an excuse. I mean, that's just -- and we can agree to disagree on it. They're dead terrorists. I could care less.

They are dead terrorists. These are people who have -- are part of a group who murdered over 3,000 Americans, some of them children, some of them expectant mothers. I will not show courtesy. So, you know, throw them over the cliff into the ocean. I don't care. But I don't think that these soldiers, these Marines, who are on video doing this, the military can handle it how the military wants to handle it.

But I'm not going to join into the chorus of going after these individuals and using them as -- to paint the military as bad and all that.

These Taliban have done more to the United States than this video, and people are trying to act as though somehow what terrorism has done to this country is equal to any offense that could be caused from the video. That is stupid. I'm not even going to bother giving you more in-depth analysis other than to say it's stupid. [The Dana Show, 1/12/12]

Loesch Responds To Criticism: I Was "Defending" Marines From "Overly-Dramatic Hysteria," "Using Absurdity To Highlight Absurdity." From a January 13 BigJournalism.com blog post:

Yesterday on my radio show I discussed the topic of the Marines videotaping themselves urinating on dead Taliban fighters. The usual mob of progressive haters started campaigning on Twitter and complaining to CNN. [...]

There is a difference in advocating for the Marines to break the law, which I didn't do, and defending them from overly-dramatic hysteria. I was using absurdity to highlight absurdity. It's absurd to desecrate corpses but it's not wrong to hate terrorists who are trying to kill our troops-and us. And I'm not in uniform-so I am free to express what a lot of Americans feel about the controversy, even if it makes some pony-tailed academics feel uncomfortable.

The progressive left chose to include CNN in their attack because they don't like that the network-any network-features conservative voices and have been throwing everything at the wall to get me removed since the very beginning.

My entire point of the past two days was to highlight the absurd reaction from militant troop-bashers to these Marines. In my Twitter timeline yesterday progressives called our military "killers, kids, barbaric trash, murderers ..." The only time soldiers are celebrated by the left is when they engage in protests like OWS. The rest of the time they're demonized. They get the red carpet rolled out for them, too. [BigJournalism.com, 1/13/12]

Secretaries Of Defense And State, Military Commanders Condemn Tape As "Inconsistent With Our Values"

Secretary Of Defense Panetta: Conduct "Inappropriate," "I Condemn It In The Strongest Possible Terms." From a January 12 CNN.com article:

"I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement. "I condemn it in the strongest possible terms."

Panetta said he has ordered the Marine Corps and International Security Assistance Force Commander Gen. John Allen "to immediately and fully investigate the incident."

"This conduct is entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military and does not reflect the standards of values our armed forces are sworn to uphold," Panetta's statement said. "Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent." [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

Sec. Panetta: Video Could Endanger Peace Talks With Taliban. In a January 13 article, the Associated Press reported:

Asked about possible implications for peace talks, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. remained strongly committed to supporting Afghan efforts.

Panetta, however, said the incident could endanger the talks.

"The danger is that this kind of video can be misused in many ways to undermine what we are trying to do in Afghanistan and the possibility of reconciliation," Panetta said at Fort Bliss, Texas, adding it's important for the U.S. to move quickly to "send a clear signal to the world that the U.S. will not tolerate this kind of behavior and that is not what the U.S. is all about." [Associated Press, 1/13/12]

Secretary Of State Clinton: Behavior "Absolutely Inconsistent With American Values."Asked about the video during a January 12 press conference, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

Well, Jill, first I want to express my total dismay at the story concerning our Marines, who I have the highest respect and admiration for. But I share completely the views expressed by Secretary Panetta earlier today. I join him in condemning the deplorable behavior that is reflected in this video. It is absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behavior that we expect from our military personnel and the vast, vast military personnel, particularly our Marines, hold themselves to. So I know Secretary Panetta has ordered a complete investigation of this incident. Anyone - anyone - found to have participated or known about it, having engaged in such conduct, must be held fully accountable. [Remarks with Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci, 1/12/12, via state.gov]

Joint Chiefs Chairman Army Gen. Dempsey: "Actions Like Those ... Serve To Erode The Reputation Of Our Joint Force." In a January 13 article, the Associated Press reported:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said he was deeply disturbed by the video and worried that its effects would spread beyond just the Marine Corps.

"Actions like those are not only illegal but are contrary to the values of a professional military and serve to erode the reputation of our joint force," Dempsey said. [Associated Press, 1/13/12]

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Amos: Conduct "Wholly Inconsistent With" Marine Corp's "High Standards Of Conduct." CNN.com reported: "Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said in a statement the behavior is 'wholly inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and warrior ethos that we have demonstrated throughout our history.'" [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

International Security Assistance Force Spokesman Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson: Actions "Grossly Against All The Moral Values That The Coalition Forces Are Standing For." As reported by CNN.com:

Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of ISAF, called the actions on the video "disgusting."

"Any acts which treat the dead, enemy or friendly, with disrespect are utterly unacceptable and do not represent the standards we expect of coalition forces," Bradshaw said in a video statement. He said he was speaking on behalf of [ISAF Commander Gen. John] Allen, who is out of the country.

"It is difficult to say what long-term impacts this might have, and I would hesitate to get into speculation, but obviously any sort of footage, any sort of activity of this kind that is grossly against all the moral values that the coalition forces are standing for are very much working against our cause and against everything that we are standing for and that we are here for," said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a NATO ISAF spokesman. "We will find the ones who are responsible and hold them accountable."

An earlier statement from NATO-led forces in Afghanistan said, "ISAF strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to have been conducted by a small group of U.S. individuals, who apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan." [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

Spokesman For Helmand Province Marines: Video's "Hate Does Not Represent The U.S. Marine Corps." From CNN.com: "'We are aware of the video. The hate in it does not represent the U.S. Marine Corps,' said Col. Ricco Player, a spokesman for the Marines in Afghanistan's volatile Helmand province." [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

DOD Spokesman: Behavior "Egregious, Disgusting." From CNN.com: "'Regardless of the circumstances or who is in the video, this is egregious, disgusting behavior,' said Department of Defense spokesman Capt. John Kirby. 'It's hideous. It turned my stomach.'" [CNN.com, 1/12/12]

Conduct Will Be Investigated For Possible Violations Of U.S. And International Law

AP: Naval Criminal Investigative Service Heading Inquiry Will Investigate "Violations Of The U.S. Military Legal Code As Well As The International Laws Of Warfare." From the Associated Press:

Pentagon officials worry that outrage over a video purporting to depict Marines urinating on Taliban corpses will tarnish the reputation of the entire military. Some also fear it could undermine prospects for exploratory Afghan peace talks.

After roundly condemning the Marines' alleged behavior, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and top military leaders on Thursday promised a full investigation and sought to contain the damage at home and abroad.

Panetta also said the incident could endanger the prospects for peace talks, although the Obama administration and the Taliban each voiced readiness Thursday to try peace talks while pledging to carry on the military conflict until their rival objectives are met. The separate statements by senior American and Taliban officials illustrated the improved environment for Afghan reconciliation efforts as well as the daunting task ahead.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the law enforcement arm of the Navy, is heading the main inquiry, which is expected to weigh evidence of violations of the U.S. military legal code as well as the international laws of warfare. Separately, the Marine Corps is doing its own internal investigation.

[...]

Pentagon officials said the criminal investigation would likely look into whether the Marines violated laws of war, which include prohibitions against photographing or mishandling bodies and detainees. It also appeared to violate the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs conduct. Thus, some or all of the four Marines could face a military court-martial or other disciplinary action. [Associated Press, 1/13/12]

Geneva Convention Prohibits "Humiliating Or Degrading Treatment" Against All Persons, Including Combatants Placed Outside The Fight For Any Reason. Article 3 of The Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a signatory, states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. [The Geneva Convention, accessed 1/13/12, via the International Committee of the Red Cross]

Uniform Code Of Military Conduct Prohibits "Conduct Of A Nature To Bring Discredit Upon The Armed Forces." Article 134 of The Uniform Code Of Military Conduct states:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. [Uniform Code of Military Conduct, accessed 1/13/12, via au.af.mil]

LA Times: Military Law Expert Says Marines Could Be Charged Under Uniform Code. The Los Angeles Times reported:

The Marines involved could be prosecuted under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. That article states that it is a violation to engage in "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Punishment for violating Article 134 is not spelled out, Fidell said, but would be determined by a military court-martial.

The Marines could also be charged under Article 92, which includes failure to obey an order and dereliction of duty -- serious violations, said Elizabeth Hillman, a professor at Hastings College of the Law at the University of California and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Conviction of violating Article 92 could bring two years in prison, she said.

The Marines could conceivably be charged with violating the War Crimes Act of 1996, which prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," and carries the death penalty. But such a prosecution is unlikely, Fidell said, because Congress in 2006 narrowed the scope of the act out of concern that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be unjustly charged with war crimes.

Under the military justice code, commanders could also be prosecuted and punished for their troops' actions under the principle of command responsibility, Fidell said. If evidence showed that commanders tolerated the behavior on the video, they could face criminal charges, Hillman said. Lesser penalties could include administrative actions that would effectively end an officer's career.

The person or persons who shot the video could also face charges, Fidell said. [The Los Angeles Times, 1/12/12] CNN National Security Experts Have Condemned Tape

Retired Maj. Gen. Spider Marks: "I'm Shocked That It Took Place. This Is Absolutely Outside The Bounds Of Anything That's Trained Or Is Acceptable." From the January 11 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:

ERIN BURNETT (Host): General Marks, let me start with you. What's your reaction when you see this? Are you shocked that this sort of thing happens or is this something that as awful as it is you know happens and you're shocked the fact that they videotaped it?

MAJ. GEN. SPIDER MARKS, U.S. ARMY GENERAL (RET.): No, I'm shocked that it took place. This is absolutely outside the bounds of anything that's trained or is acceptable and these young men know that and I can't explain their behavior. I need to tell you the Marine Corps will jump all over this. They'll investigate this and there will be some -- there will be some accountability that will come from this. [...]

So to answer your question, it has everything to do with recruiting of our enemies, as Fran indicated. It has less to do with the Marine Corps or our Department of Defense in terms of bringing great young men and women on board. I'm not concerned about that. Sadly, behavior like this often occurs, it's really very aberrant. This is a digital form of scalping. It's just -- it should not have occurred and I know that chain of command is going to figure out why. [CNN,Erin Burnett OutFront,1/11/12, via CNN.com]

Bush National Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend: Act Is "Illegal," Video Will Be Used To Recruit Terrorists. From the January 11 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:

BURNETT: Fran, let me ask you, I know obviously you were advising the Bush administration when the Abu Ghraib pictures started coming out. Those started in a trickle and then became something more. Does this to you feel like an isolated event or --

FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND, G. W. BUSH NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Look, based on what we know at the moment, it does look like an isolated event, but what you have to understand and what gets lost to people around the world when they see this picture and this horrible video is that this is contrary to U.S. policy, it's illegal. It's against the uniform code of military justice and that's why there will be an accountability review. But what happens is it gets a life of its own and so it's used by people like the Taliban and al-Qaeda to recruit, to train, to inspire and to raise money. And so it has -- and awful as it is in and of itself it has consequences that go on far beyond just this story. [CNN,Erin Burnett OutFront, 1/11/12, via CNN.com]

Bush, Administration Officials Apologized For Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse: "A Stain On Our Country's Honor"

April 2004: Photos Emerge Depicting American Soldiers Abusing Iraqi Prisoners. In 2004, photos emerged showing American soldiers at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in abusing Iraqi prisoners in order to make them talk. As The New York Times noted, CBS News reported that the Army "had photographs showing a detainee with wires attached to his genitals and another showing a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. The program also reported that the Army's investigation of the case included a statement from an Iraqi detainee who charges that a translator hired to work at the prison raped a male juvenile prisoner." [The New York Times, 4/29/04]

President Bush Apologized For Abu Ghraib Abuse: "It's A Stain On Our Country's Honor And Our Country's Reputation." From a May 6, 2004, USA Today article:

President Bush issued his first outright apology Thursday for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, saying photographs of the mistreatment made Americans "sick to our stomachs."

In a White House briefing with Jordan's King Abdullah, Bush said he told Abdullah that "I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families."

Bush's apology, which he stopped short of giving in two interviews with Arab television stations Wednesday, came as the administration continued frantic efforts to control the damage from the prisoner abuse scandal.

The president continued to insist that guilty parties will be brought to justice. In addition to probes of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, investigations have been launched into the deaths of at least 10 Iraqi prisoners at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's a stain on our country's honor and our country's reputation," Bush said. "I am sickened by what I saw and sickened that people got the wrong impression." [USA Today, 5/6/04]

Condoleezza Rice: Abu Ghraib Photos Were "Sickening" And "Outrageous." From a May 4, 2004, CNN article:

Facing anger at home and abroad, the Bush administration is moving aggressively to signal it is taking seriously the abuse of Iraqi prisoners detailed in an internal military report.

[...]

In a speech before the Anti-Defamation League, Rice said the activities shown in photos broadcast last week of mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were "sickening" and "outrageous." [CNN.com, 5/4/04]

Colin Powell: "Conduct Depicted In [Abu Ghraib] Photos" Was "Immoral," "Stunned Every American." From the May 4, 2004, CNN article:

Speaking from the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell condemned the conduct depicted in the photos as "immoral."

The pictures "stunned every American," Powell told reporters after a meeting on the Middle East. "They showed acts that are despicable. The president has spoken to this. It is totally out of character of what we would expect from our men and women in uniform." [CNN.com, 5/4/04]

Donald Rumsfeld: Abu Ghraib Photos "Deeply Disturbing," And "Un-American." From the May 4, 2004, CNN article:

Labeling the Abu Ghraib pictures "deeply disturbing," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the alleged behavior of the U.S. troops in the pictures was "totally unacceptable and un-American."

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would pursue charges against those involved. But he defended the Defense Department's handling of the matter, saying an investigation was under way and disclosed three months before the pictures became public. [CNN.com, 5/4/04]

CNN's Loesch Joined By Pamela Geller In Defending Marines

Geller: "I Love These Marines." In a January 11 post on her blog, Pamela Geller wrote:

CAIR has whipped itself up into an Islamic frenzy because  a video surfaced that appears to show US Marines combat gear urinating on several dead jihadis.

Here's the thing. Hamas liars, CAIR, say jihad and pure Islam is "fringe," "extremist." So why do they CAIR about disrespecting the Taliban? According to CAIR lies, Taliban and jihadists do not represent Islam, they have "hijacked Islam"; so why would CAIR care about "respect"?

CAIR calls these Marines immoral, but considers honor killings, clitorectomies, forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, subjugation of women, slaughter of non-Muslims, Jew hatred moral?

Would anyone have CAIRed if Marines urinated on dead Nazi soldiers during WWII? (Anyone besides CAIR and nazis [sic], that is).

I love these Marines. Perhaps this is the infidel interpretation of the Islamic ritual of washing and preparing the body for burial. [Atlas Shrugs, 1/12/12]

Geller Frequently Makes Extreme And Anti-Muslim Comments. From an August 2010 Geller profile by the Religion News Service:

Pamela Geller, a Long Island native who writes the blog "Atlas Shrugs," said she was the "quintessential New York City career girl" before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Since then, she has co-founded groups dedicated to fighting the "Islamization" of America, sponsored anti-Muslim ads in several cities, and, more recently, become a near daily presence on television news programs. [...]

Now, even Muslim groups reluctantly acknowledge Geller is front and center in the mosque debate. "People say don't give her too much credit, she's a fringe character," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "But she is a fringe character who every day is on CNN, Fox, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. She is the driving force behind the Islamic center campaign."

Some media experts doubt Geller's influence, though, and question why reporters have given her controversial views a platform. Postings on "Atlas Shrugs" have included a video suggesting Muslims have sex with goats, a doctored picture showing President Obama urinating on an American flag, and a fake image of new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in Nazi garb.

Geller has also accused Obama of anti-Semitism, said that he does the bidding of "Islamic overlords," and posted an essay suggesting that the president is the love child of Malcolm X. [Religion News Service, 8/20/10]

Right-wing media are demonizing the National Council of La Raza in order to object to President Obama's recent appointment of Cecilia Muñoz as director of the Domestic Policy Council, accusing the organization of being an "amnesty" group with "racist" ties. These attacks are not new: Conservatives have long described the civil rights group as "the Ku Klux Klan Of The Hispanic People."

Obama Appointed Former NCLR Exec Muñoz To Head Policy Council

Muñoz Previously Served As NCLR Senior Vice President. On January 10, Obama named Muñoz as the new director of the Domestic Policy Council:

Cecilia Muñoz currently serves as Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs where she oversees the Obama Administration's relationships with state and local governments. As Director of Intergovernmental Affairs under Valerie Jarrett, Ms. Muñoz leads a partnership between federal, state, local, and tribal governments that Governing magazine described as "more prominent and responsive than it ever was," citing praise from local and state elected officials from across the political spectrum. Under Muñoz's leadership, this partnership has brought the voices of local elected officials and the people they represent into the White House in the development and execution of policies to address local challenges in the economy, health care, disaster relief, and transportation infrastructure among others.

Ms. Muñoz also leads the Administration's efforts to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets America's 21st century economic and security needs. In addition, she serves as Co-Chair of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, which has worked to not only continue to address the question of the island's political status, but also partnered with local officials to address immediate concerns over jobs and the economy, health care, education, the environment, energy, and infrastructure.

Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Muñoz served as Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation's largest Latino civil rights organization. She supervised NCLR's policy staff covering a variety of issues of importance to Latinos, including civil rights, employment, poverty, farmworker issues, education, health, housing, and immigration. Her particular area of expertise is immigration policy, which she covered at NCLR for twenty years. [Office of the White House Press Secretary, 4/3/06]

Figures in the right-wing media have a puzzling habit of attacking Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's hair. They have coupled this with other sexist attacks -- for instance, Rush Limbaugh's description of her as "one of those women you're happy somebody else married."

Conservative Media: "Frizzilla"; "She Of The Angry Perm"; She Uses "Mayonnaise" In Her Hair

Greg Gutfeld Calls Wasserman Schultz "Frizzilla." From Fox News' The Five:

GUTFELD (co-host): So, in my mind, which is made of felt and potatoes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the best thing to happen to Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Seriously, I've had wedgies less irritating than her. And that can only chafe the Democrats. Case in point: Once again the DNC chair links the Tea Party to the Tucson mass murder. So, Frizzilla, I bet you think the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, has really changed. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/12]

Click here for the truth about Wasserman Schultz's comments on the Tucson shooting and the Tea Party.

Dana Perino Mocks Wasserman Schultz's Hair. From an exchange on Fox News' Happening Now between co-host Jenna Lee and Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News' The Five:

LEE: Let's just say it's Halloween, and you're dressing up as the spokesperson for the DNC. Let's just say that that's your role.

PERINO: With better hair.

LEE: Let's just say that that's what you're doing. [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/12/12, via Mediaite]

Monica Crowley: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, She Of The Angry Perm, Has Some Real Nerve." From The Five:

CROWLEY (co-host): O,h come on. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she of the angry perm, has some real nerve. For years, the left has been lying and smearing about the right, and the right has just sat there and taken it time and again. [Fox News, The Five, 7/21/11]

Limbaugh: "Debbie Wasserman Blabbermouth Schultz" Uses "Mayonnaise" In Her Hair. From Rush Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: Debbie Wasserman Blabbermouth Schultz, no relationship to Ed Blabbermouth Schultz. And she is demanding everybody buy an American car, just like she doesn't. Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz does not drive an American car. The Hill claims that Ms. Schultz drives an Infiniti and a Nissan. She doesn't even own a Subaru.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: The good news is that she does use a domestic brand of mayonnaise in her hair to compensate for the fact that she doesn't buy an American car. Well, she's doing something to her hair. Looks like mayonnaise, I don't know what. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/27/11]

More Sexism: "Anthony Weiner, Only An Octave Higher"; "Chairbabe Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz"

Michelle Malkin: Wasserman Schultz Is Nothing More Than "Alan Grayson In Heels" And "Anthony Weiner, Only An Octave Higher." From Fox News' Hannity:

MALKIN: Well, it's quite a nasty little self-serving circus in the Beltway, and of course it's rife with double standards, particularly when it comes to the tone, the tenor, and the lack of quality of arguments of Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself. When it comes to the quality of her arguments, she's nothing more than Alan Grayson in heels, and when it comes to the tone of her rhetoric, she's nothing more than Anthony Weiner, only an octave higher. This is a woman who was just recently accusing the Republican party of sending America back to the Jim Crow era, and you didn't hear all the civility police demanding that she rachet down her rhetoric and make America's children proud. Remember that it was just mere months ago that President Obama was wagging his finger at all of us and asking us to make sure that we were making future generations proud with the quality and tone of our debates. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/20/11]

Limbaugh: "Chairbabe Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz." From Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: Here's the byte. It happened yesterday in Washington at the Politico Playbook breakfast. The new chairbabe of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, spoke. During the Q&A, CNN senior White House correspondent Ed Henry and Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz had this exchange about the economy. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/11]

Limbaugh: Wasserman Schultz Is "One Of Those Women You're Happy Somebody Else Married." From Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: And she was kind of shocked at first. She's a scrapper. I've seen Debbie Wasserman Schultz in action. She's one of those women you're happy somebody else married. And I'll tell you, she acted like she didn't know -- Dawn, it's a joke. Dawn's in there's going, "Oh no, he was so good today. Why did he have to do that?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/18/09]

Consistent with his long history of race-baiting attacks, Rush Limbaugh has used his first programs of 2012 to levy a series of racial attacks on President Obama. In the last week, he has claimed that President Obama's "plan" is "payback" against the "white Europeans" who "illegitimately founded" the United States, said that the Obamas think they are "owed" a lavish lifestyle "because of what's been done to" them and their "ancestors," and asserted that Obama believes the United States was "immoral in its founding" in part due to slavery.

Limbaugh Begins 2012 By Attacking Obama For Being Motivated By Racial Grievances   

Limbaugh: Obama's Plan Is "Payback" Against The "White Europeans" Who "Immorally And Illegitimately Founded" This Country. From January 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I started to say a couple things here, but I got sidetracked by this Romney thing. By the way, I'm going to sidetracked again here. All this having been said, Romney gave what may be his best speech ever last night, his acceptance speech or victory speech. May have been the best speech he's ever given. Somebody just needs to -- somebody needs to put a pair of comforting hands on the shoulders, a gentle shake, and say, let me remind you who Obama is. Let me tell you who your opponent is, and what he's doing, and how you are nothing like him, and you don't want to be seen as anything like him. But that's not my job, man. I know, Obama's not just a nice guy who's in over his head. Obama has a plan. Obama's plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it's about time that the scales were made even. And that's what's going on here. And that's why the president is lawless, and that's why there is no prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, because it's not possible for a minority to intimidate the white majority. It's not possible. It's always been the other way around. This is just payback. This is "how does it feel" time. That's how he seems himself, pure and simple. He doesn't see himself as a capitalist reformer saving a stupid automobile company. He sees this is his opportunity to take it away from the people who founded it and give it to the people he thinks have a moral right to it because somehow they have been taken advantage of, used, exploited, paid unfairly, what have you. Yeah, it's socialist. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/11/12, via Media Matters, emphasis added]

Limbaugh: Obamas Think They're "Owed" A Lavish Lifestyle "Because Of What's Been Done To" Them And Their "Ancestors." From the January 9 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now, I believe that in addition to whatever drives Obama and his party ideologically, also near the top of the list is the pursuit of money without having to work for it. Being able to pass it out to their friends and set their friends up to be wealthy for the rest of their lives. I think there's all kinds of that going on, too. And I think if you look at the way the Obamas live, with Michelle and her separate vacations and not being concerned about how much it costs to take separate airplanes -- there's no question in my mind that they view this as -- whatever else they view it as, as an opportunity to live high on the hog without having it cost them a dime. And they justify it by thinking, "Well, we deserve this, or we're owed this because of what's been done to us and our ancestors all these" -- who knows? I think that's -- I think that's part of it.

I also think that it is why the Republican establishment wants back -- and everybody in Washington wants to be in charge of the money. Everybody wants to run the committee chairmans-- the committee and be the chairman. Everybody wants to be in charge of the budget. Everybody wants to have power over it. Do not discount, ever, the money. And do not -- folks, another thing not to fall for: Do not think that however wealthy somebody is, they run around thinking they have enough, because nobody ever thinks they have enough. And no matter how much you have, it's very easy -- it's not hard at all to learn how to spend every dime in your pocket. It's easy.

Now, people who've never had 2 or 3 million dollars think, "My gosh, what would I spend it on?" You'd be surprised once you have it. It's not that hard. And the concept of, "Well, gosh, don't you have enough?" That's a myth. That's something the liberals use to try to guilt other people out of pursuing achievement and so forth. But believe me, no matter what they have, it's never enough. And I think there's a lot of reasons why the Obamas, the Democrats are doing what they're doing. In addition to the ideology, in addition to whatever grievances they have about this country and its past and however they think it needs to be cut down to size, and however they think the people who have gotten rich need to be gotten even with. Also in the mix is their chance to get their share without having to work for it and set themselves up, and their friends up, for life in the process. I don't doubt that that's a factor here.

And they're clearly willing to use the power, and they don't care about the debt that the country is involved in, and they don't think that we are at a point of peril. The idea that the national debt is now greater then the economy -- no big deal. They've been hearing all their lives how the national debt's too high, the national debt's going to cripple the country, but it never has. While they are hearing all of this horrible stuff about the debt, the deficits, all the tax rates, they look around, they see people doing just fine, living high on the hog, and the national debt's not hurting anybody. The rich are getting richer, and that's who they want to be. And if they don't know how to earn a lot of money working for it, they'll go someplace where they can legally steal it. Or apportion it to themselves and their friends, and that's a large part of what's going on with this regime. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/9/12, via Media Matters, emphasis added]

Limbaugh: Obama "Thinks This Is An Unjust Country, That It Was Immoral In Its Founding For Reasons Including But Greater Than Slavery." From the January 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I think Obama -- and Giuliani's right: [Obama's] an Alinskyite. He has been taught, he's been raised, educated, whatever. He's got a deep resentment for this country. You know me. I have told you. I'm willfully naïve, I guess. I can't get my arms around the fact that there are people born in this country who hate it. I know they do, they can explain to me the differences in ideology and so forth, I just -- I'm never going to intellectually or emotionally understand it, even though I can explain it, it still makes no sense to me. Yet I know those people exist and I know that they are the people that taught Obama. They are among those who educated him, both in his family and at the institutions of higher learning and academe that he attended. I know that he thinks this is an unjust country, that it was immoral in its founding for reasons including but greater than slavery. He thinks it was economically unjust and immoral. He thinks a bunch of rich white guys -- this one percent versus 99 percent stuff, that's how he thinks the country was founded and that the one percent has maintained themselves in total control of all the wealth since the days of the founding and that they take purposeful steps to keep everybody out of that club. He believes it. He thinks the only remedy for it is to take everything the one percent has and give it away to everybody else. Now the ulterior motives to that are entrenching his own power. I don't think there's benevolence in this. I don't think Obama runs around every day feeling genuinely sorry for the 99 percent. I don't think he's motivated by altruism. I think he's motivated by anger. He's got a chip on his shoulder, a number of them. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/12/12, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Has A Long History Of Race-Baiting Attacks PRESIDENT OBAMA

Limbaugh On White House Hanukkah Celebration: "I'm Sure [Obama] Thought It Was Kwanzaa." On the December 9, 2011, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Snerdley, what do you think the odds are that Obama got confused Hanukkah and Kwanzaa?  When was Kwanzaa invented? No, '66.  I looked it up.  Kwanzaa was invented 1966. Close enough.  It was invented by a guy named Ron Karenga. Yeah. Yeah.  His name was Ron Karenga but he had an alias, Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga.

So he was a doctor. And he invented Kwanzaa, which is a seven-day feast, runs December 26 to January 1. In 1966 he branded it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what Ron Karenga considered the Christmas season exploitation of African Americans. Now, what was that?  What was the Christmas season exploitation of African Americans? Was it all the black Santa Clauses that were out there in the department stores? What was it then?  What was the exploitation of African Americans at Christmastime? According to the official Kwanzaa website, as opposed to the Hallmark Cards Kwanzaa site, the celebration was designed to foster conditions that would enhance the revolutionary social change for the -- anyway it also has a candelabra. It was seven days, seven candles instead of eight for Hanukkah, and you light 'em all at once. So Obama had a menorah there and he lit 'em all. I'm sure he thought it was Kwanzaa while talking about loyalty to Israel. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/9/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama "Talks Honky Around White People." On the September 27, 2011, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: When you listen to Obama on a stump, when you listen to his nasty tone, which is what our caller called about, you listen to his name-calling, you listen to the class warfare, you hear his supporters with their racism charges, their thug language, who and what does it remind you of? I'll tell you who and what it reminds me of. Jeremiah Wright. We are hearing Jeremiah Wright when Obama gets testy and ticked off out on the campaign trail. We are learning that he heard Reverend Wright all those 20 years. 

His message, his tone, his beliefs sound like Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit. When he starts dropping his G's, starts getting angry and ticked off. I even heard somebody talk about chickens coming home to roost the other day from the campaign. Wish I could remember who I heard say that, but regardless, sounds just like Jeremiah Wright when he gets all mad, angry, starts chiding the Congressional Black Caucus, message, tone, beliefs. That's why he was attracted to Jeremiah Wright and his church in the first place is because you strip away the facade, and what you have here is an angry young guy ticked off at whatever he thinks are the injustices and the inequities of this country. 

Barack Obama getting in touch with his inner Reverend Wright. He even talks honky around white people. You know what I mean by that, Snerdley. You might have to explain it to Rachel, who is as white bread as anybody I know. But he talks honky. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/27/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Coins The Term "Or-Bam-Eo" To Describe New Oreo With Chocolate And Vanilla Cream. During the August 17, 2011, edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh described a new Oreo that will have both chocolate and vanilla cream as a "biracial" cookie and said "it isn't going to be long before it's going to be called the Or-Bam-eo or something like this." Limbaugh later called it the "Or-Bam-eo" himself. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/17/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "There's A Racial Component" To The "Chip On [Obama's] Shoulder." On the April 21, 2011, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show,  Limbaugh asked why Obama "harbor[s] resentment -- why not thank the people whose taxes made possible the Social Security and the Medicare and the food stamps and whatever else" Obama received growing up. Limbaugh further said there is "this chip on [Obama's] shoulder, which got a lot more on it than just this story, I mean there's a racial component, as you know, and other elements." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/21/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "Barry Obama" Comes From A "Very White" Background, Not "From Da 'Hood." On March 3, 2011, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Now let me ask you a question. How many people really think of Obama as black? I mean, apart from Chris Matthews, who's obsessed with that? One of Obama's parents was black. Undeniable. But he was raised by a white mother, by white grandparents, he went to a highly exclusive private school in Hawaii with rich white students and white teachers, he went to exclusive colleges that were practically lily white. Barry Obama is from a very white, albeit radical left, cultural background. He's not from da 'hood. He's not from the movement. Although I'm beginning -- you know, maybe he's right. Maybe he's right. Everything is race for him -- the race for the presidency, he can play upon his race and skin color to get reelected. Surely he will, surely he is now. So it's all about making himself a victim. I'm telling you, there's a chip on this guy's shoulder and it, folks, it is a factor in every policy decision he makes, every agenda item that he has. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/3/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh On "Arrogant" Obama: He's Like "Some" African-Americans Who Say "Fourth Of July Ain't No Big Deal To Me, Yo." From the August 26, 2010, edition of Limbaugh's show:

LIMBAUGH: I think to get to Obama we need to go a little bit deeper. Let me focus mostly on the lazy. Because I think the lazy -- for example, here he's on his sixth vacation, he really doesn't appear to work very hard, gets to the Oval Orifice at 9:30 in the morning. Bush got in there at seven. Reagan got in there at seven, took a nap at 7:15, got back to work at ten -- just kidding. Tweaking the left. Bush got in there early, Obama is late, he doesn't spend a lot of time in there. I don't think it's laziness. I think it is arrogance. I think Obama thinks of himself as above the job. I don't think he likes the job as much as he thought he was going to like it. I don't think he likes the White House. I think he looks at the White House as confining. I think one of the reasons all these vacations is he gets outta there. He and his wife do not like living there. To them the White House is not a great place of honor, it's a prison, and a lot of presidents have felt that it's a prison, but to them it's like some African-Americans, "Fourth of July ain't no big deal to me, yo." Well, the White House, to a lot of African-Americans, is the same thing. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that came out of there by presidents that were in there that they're not particularly happy about. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/26/10, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama Comments On AZ Law Are "Siding Against The American People," Playing "The Race Card," "Dividing America." On his May 6, 2010, radio show, Limbaugh criticized Obama for condemning the immigration law that was abusing civil rights in the state of Arizona. Rush suggested that "once again we have the race card being thrown down" and the President is "siding against the American people." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/6/10, via Media Matters]  

Limbaugh: "Obama Is Uppity, But Not As A Black. He Is An Elitist." On February 10, 2010, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: From InsideHigherEducation.com, you will not believe -- well yeah, you will believe it. Everything that used to be unbelievable is not only believable it is happening. "Barack Obama has been called a lot of things since he hit the national stage: Celebrity, elitist and even one who 'pals around with terrorists.' But as his poll numbers come back down to earth, and an emboldened conservative movement sharpens its attacks, the label that seems to be sticking to Obama as much as any lately is that of 'professor.' Speaking to Tea Party activists in Nashville last week, Sarah Palin did her part to keep the 'professor' dig in circulation. The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee told a frenzied crowd, 'They know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.' The use of 'professor' as a term of derision may have hit its stride in the 1950s, but it dates back to scolding characterizations of Socrates, according to Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley."

OK, fine. Frankly, I didn't know that "professor" had become the number one dig. But if it is, fine and dandy. Now get this: "Charles Ogletree, Harvard law professor, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for race and Justice says that he sees the 'professor' label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama's race."

Yes, my friends, you heard me read that. I heard myself read it. So now when we call Obama a professor, we are racist. "Calling Obama the professor walks dangerously close to labeling him uppity, a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said. Describing his divisive confirmation hearings as a circus, Justice Thomas called the proceedings a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deigned to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. It's perhaps ironic, then, that the Ogletree, who represented Anita Hill, now sees a bit of the 'uppity' label being placed on Obama."

This is two different kinds of uppity that are being discussed about here. So now is professor the P-word? We've got the N-word, we have the R-word, and now we have the P-word? We can't -- we gotta -- we gotta speak in code? And only people who don't know what P-word is will understand what we're saying.

"The idea that he's not one of us, Ogletree says of the professor label. He has these ideas on that are left-wing that are socialist, that he's palling around with terrorists. Those are buzzwords, but the reality was that they were looking at this president as an African-American who is out of place." You know, Professor Ogletree, I hate to burst the balloon, but the single most important reason Obama was elected was his race.

A bunch of white people who thought electing a black president would assuage all of their guilt and erase our racial past voted for Obama. They couldn't of cared less what he thought, what he said. He didn't think of his as uppity, they were being selfish. They didn't like feeling guilty over our racists past, slavery, and so they thought pulling the lever for Obama would absolve them. It wasn't for his policies, as we are now quickly learning.

What Clarence Thomas meant by uppity, meaning he wasn't a liberal black. When Clarence Thomas said uppity black thinks for himself means he's off the reservation, so to speak. He's not following the civil rights speech codes set forth by the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton and whoever else is in charge of them. But nobody -- Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he's smarter and better than everybody else. That's what he was taught. He's a Harvard man. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/10/10, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "I Do Believe" Obama Is An "Angry Black Guy." Responding to accusations that he had called Obama "an angry black man," Limbaugh said on July 27, 2009, "they're finally hearing me -- he's an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he's angry; I think his wife is angry. All liberals are enraged all the time anyways. They're always mad." Previously, Limbaugh had said that Obama is "one angry guy." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/27/09, 3/24/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "We Are Being Told That We Have To Hope [Obama] Succeeds, That We Have To Bend Over, Grab The Ankles ... Because His Father Was Black." After Obama's inauguration, Limbaugh said during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News that "[r]acism in this country is the exclusive province of the left. We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We're being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles. Bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign. So I think they've done a great job, the media has, of covering up his deficiencies." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/21/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "[I]n Obama's America, The White Kids Now Get Beat Up With The Black Kids Cheering." On September 15, 2009, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect -- you expect safety. But in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on.' And of course everybody says, 'Oh, the white kid deserved it. He was born a racist, he's white.' Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses. White students destroying civility in classrooms all over America. White congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives. We can redistribute students while we redistribute their parents' wealth. I mean, we can just redistribute everything. Just return the white students to their rightful place, their own bus, with bars on the windows and armed guards. They're racist. They get what they deserve. Newsweek magazine told us this -- post-racial America. I mean, I wonder if Obama's going to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/15/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "Obama's Entire Economic Program Is Reparations." On June 22, 2009, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: What they don't know is that Obama's entire economic program is reparations. If I were [Al] Sharpton, if I'd been guest-hosting Sharpton's show, and I got a call like that, somebody complaining, I'd say, 'No, hey, hey, hey. Shh, shh. Let me tell you the truth here. Everything in the stimulus plan, every plan he's got is reparations. He gonna take from the rich, he's gonna take from the -- he's gonna give it to you. It just can't happen overnight. Be patient.' That's what's -- redistribution of wealth, reparations, returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners, whatever you want to call it, it's reparations. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/22/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama Is "More African In His Roots Than He Is American" And Is "Behaving Like An African Colonial Despot." After reading extensively from an American Thinker column smearing Obama, Limbaugh said on June 26, 2009, that Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/26/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama Is "Halfrican-American." On January 24, 2007, Limbaugh referred to Obama and actress Halle Berry as "Halfrican-American[s]," stating that "Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry." Limbaugh then said: " 'As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,' Obama said." Limbaugh then conceded that Obama "didn't say it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/24/07, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "Obama Has Disowned His White Half ... He's Decided He's Got To Go All In On The Black Side." On March 21, 2008, Limbaugh said of Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright: "It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side." Limbaugh had earlier said: "[Y]ou know, opening these race wounds like this, taking us back 30, 40 years, making it look like no progress has been made -- what Barack Obama has done -- I'm going to say something here that might offend -- or not offend -- but might make some uncomfortable. But it is clear to me that there has been a major transformation in Senator Obama." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/21/08, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama "Wants Us To Have The Same Health Care And Plan That He Had In Kenya" And "Wants To Be The Black FDR." On August 24, 2009, Limbaugh said he "finally figured out why it is Obama's pushing so hard on this health care bill." He asserted: "He just wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya. And look, you know, economic anxiety is necessary if you want to become the next black FDR, which is -- well, the black FDR. That's what he wants. He wants to be the black FDR, the next FDR, and FDR fed off of economic anxiety." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/24/09, via Media Matters] 

Limbaugh: "God Does Not Have A Birth Certificate. Neither Does Obama"; Obama "Has Yet To Prove He's A Citizen." On June 10, 2009, Limbaugh advanced the theory that Obama was not born in the United States, saying that "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama," and that Obama "has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. All he'd have to do is show a birth certificate." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/10/09, 7/20/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Suggests Obama Would Not Have Acted On Somali Pirates If He'd Known They Were "Actually Young, Black Muslim Teenagers." On April 14, 2009, Limbaugh suggested the "correct" way to look at a situation in which Obama sent the military to retrieve American hostages from Somali pirates was that "if only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young, black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot." [Premiere Radio Networks,  The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/14/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Suggests Democrats, Media Believe "You Can't Criticize The Little Black Man-Child." Referring to GOP presidential campaign ads comparing Obama to Britney Spears on August 20, 2008, Limbaugh said: "It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right, It's not fair. He's such a victim." The previous day, Limbaugh had said that "it is striking how unqualified Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say, "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/20/08, 8/19/08, via Media Matters] 

FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA

Limbaugh: Michelle Obama Was Booed At NASCAR Event Because She Has Exhibited "Uppity-Ism." On November 21, 2011, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Bottom line: We don't like being told what to eat. We don't like being told how much to exercise. We don't like being told what we've got to drive. We don't like wasting money. We don't like our economy being bankrupted. We don't like 14 percent unemployment. The question is, what the hell is there to cheer for when Ms. Obama and Ms. Biden show up?

NASCAR people, as are most people in this country, are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they're being insulted and condescended to. And they remember being called bitter clingers. They know that in their hearts the Obamas don't like them. We've taken notice of this as has, by the way, Chris Matthews and a lot of congressional Democrats are also fully aware that the Obamas just don't like a lot of people and they don't like hanging around a lot of people.

I'll tell you something else: We don't like paying millions of dollars for Mrs. Obama's vacations. The NASCAR crowd doesn't quite understand why when the husband and the wife are going to the same place the first lady has to take her own Boeing 757 with family and kids and hangers on four hours earlier than her husband, who will be on his 747.

NASCAR people understand that's a little bit of a waste. They understand it's a little bit of uppity-ism. First ladies have not been known to hop their own 757s four hours ahead of their husband when they're both going to the same place. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/21/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh "Speculate[d]" That Michelle Obama Didn't Attend Sen. Byrd's Funeral Because Of Her "Authentic Slave Blood." On his July 2, 2010 show, while discussing Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral, Limbaugh said that "as has been said by several black civil rights leaders, Obama does not have authentic slave blood. But Michelle does, and maybe that's why" she didn't attend the funeral. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/2/10, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh On Michelle Obama Addressing "Angry Black Woman" Stereotype: "Imagine That. She's Mad At Somebody For Portraying Her As Mad." Discussing Michelle Obama's comments to CBS that she has been painted as "some kind of angry black woman," Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Yes, I see Michelle Obama's mad while saying she's not. She's tired of the angry black woman image that she's got. She's mad at the New York Times reporter for stereotyping her as an angry black woman. Imagine that. She's mad at somebody for portraying her as mad. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/11/12, via Media Matters]

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 

Limbaugh: "Race Riots" Are Part Of The Obama Administration's Plan; "I'm Not Predicting It, But If It Happens Don't Count Me As One Who's Surprised." On the October 17, 2011 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Now Snerdley's in there yelling at me: "If you do what you just suggested, what Paul suggested, there would be rioting in the streets." There's rioting in the streets now. And there's going to be more rioting in the streets, because that's part of the program here. And next up there are going to be race riots. I guarantee. And the race riots are part of the plan that this regime has. That's next. You'll note that everybody's talking about white organize Wall Street is. Well, didn't take long for them to do the Martin Luther King thing yesterday. You just watch and wait until these two things get melded, which they will. The more chaos and instability, the better. I'm not predicting it, but if it happens just don't count me as one who's surprised, is what I'm saying here. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/17/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Called Obama Administration A "Racist" "Regime." During the April 26, 2010, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed Arizona's controversial immigration law and claimed that "not everybody thinks that civil rights are the end-all and be-all of every single issue." Limbaugh then cited a video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including that among minorities and women, and said, "This is the regime at its racist best." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/26/10, via Media Matters] 

OTHER RACE-BAITING ATTACKS

Limbaugh: Politico Story "Is About Blacks ... Getting Too Uppity." On his website, Limbaugh featured the transcript of a radio show segment in which he defended then-presidential candidate Herman Cain using the title: "We Should Not be Surprised by the Left's Racist Hit Job on Herman Cain." On his radio show, he stated:

LIMBAUGH: It really is about blacks and Hispanics getting too uppity. That's what this is. You don't achieve in American politics as a Republican, as a self-reliant individual or conservative. You don't do it. You try it and we're going to destroy you -- Washington Post and Marco Rubio last week and the week before. Today, Herman Cain.

Now Clinton is laughing because he knows the media and the liberals are gonna treat a black conservative far different than how they would treat any Democrat. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/31/11]

Limbaugh On Diaz-Balart Questions At GOP Debate: "Why Not Bring Out Some Black Guy To Ask Questions About Race?" On the September 8, 2011 version of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh mocked the debate questions after NBC chose Telemundo's Jose Diaz-Balart to ask a question on illegal immigration. Limbaugh wondered "why not bring out some black guy to ask questions about race and bring out a feminazi to ask questions about women? [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/8/11, via Media Matters] 

Limbaugh: "For The First Time In His Life, Paterson Is Gonna Be A Massa." During a discussion with a caller on March 9, 2010, about African-American New York Gov. David Paterson possibly appointing a replacement for former Rep. Eric Massa, Limbaugh said, "So, for the first time in his life, Paterson's gonna be a massa. Interesting, interesting." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/9/10, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Declares Basketball "The Favorite Sport Of Gangs." Discussing the government's attempts to curb violence, Limbaugh told a caller on October 7, 2009:

LIMBAUGH: It's not reasonable that you should understand the insanity that local and state and federal bureaucracies are doing. It's perfectly normal and understandable that none of what they do would make sense to you. My question -- OK, a 1 cent sales tax to fight gang violence. What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? Afterschool program -- don't we already have afterschool programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball -- I mean, we've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court. We had 100,000 new cops with Clinton -- we've done it all. And the problem still is out of control. Liberalism doesn't work. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/7/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "The Government's Been Taking Care Of [Young Blacks] Their Whole Lives." On February 1, 2007, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report about a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated from today's government" by asserting, "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/1/07, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "The Days Of [Minorities] Not Having Any Power Are Over, And They Are Angry." On June 4, 2009, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: This has been the argument the Reverend Jackson has proffered throughout my life -- that it's impossible for minorities to be racist because they don't have any power. Well, president of the United States. We're talking now about a Supreme Court justice. The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry; he's going to cut this country down to size. He's going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made -- its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on here. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/4/09, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "The Media Has Been Very Desirous That A Black Quarterback Do Well." In 2003, Limbaugh resigned from his job as an ESPN commentator after saying that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb hasn't "been that good from the get-go" and "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve," because "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." After the Eagles reached Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005, Limbaugh returned to making racial comments about McNabb, saying, "There's no question McNabb has improved and I'm happy to see it," but that "when the defense ... was propping the Eagles up," the media "were still giving McNabb credit -- because there's this social hope." [ESPN.com, 10/1/03; Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/24/05, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "The NFL All Too Often Looks Like A Game Between The Bloods And The Crips." On January 19, 2007, Limbaugh stated: "Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/19/07, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh On Survivor Series: "African-American Tribe" Worst Swimmers, Hispanics "Will Do Things Other People Won't Do." On August 23, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that the competition in a season of CBS' Survivor, in which contestants were reportedly divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, "is not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events." In support of this assertion, he cited a March 2, 2006, HealthDay article reporting that "young blacks -- especially males -- are much more likely to drown in pools than whites." He later added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." On his September 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh claimed "[t]here can only be one reason" Survivor scrapped "segregated" competition after two episodes -- "the white tribe had to be winning." [Media Matters, 10/13/09; Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/29/06, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Said Democrats' Interest In Darfur Is Securing Black "Voting Bloc." On August 21, 2007, Limbaugh claimed that Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/21/07, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Called Civil Rights Leaders Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson "Race Hustlers." During the October 15, 2009, edition of his show, Limbaugh noted the fact that NFL Players Association director DeMaurice Smith had sent a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell objecting to Limbaugh's bid to become a partial owner of the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh then said, "And then, of course, the two race hustlers, the Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton, got involved." [Media Matters, 10/15/09]

For more of Rush Limbaugh's race-baiting attacks, click here.

Fox News has repeatedly promoted South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson's claim that voter fraud is indicated by records showing that more than 900 state residents were recorded as casting a vote after their reported death date. But the official who first publicized that figure reportedly said that the discrepancy could be explained by voters casting absentee ballots before their deaths or by data errors.

Fox Suggests Hundreds Of Votes Were Fraudulently Cast In The Names Of Dead SC Residents ...

Fox Business' Dobbs: New Report "Shows That More Than 900 People -- Dead People -- Appeared To Have Voted In Recent Elections In South Carolina." From the January 11 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: South Carolina tonight suing the Justice Department for blocking a state law that required voters of South Carolina to show identification. Attorney General Eric Holder trying to explain why such a law is so difficult for the Justice Department to accept.

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL [video clip]: Speak out. Raise awareness about what's at stake. Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hopes of attaining electoral success and instead encourage and work with the parties to achieve the success by appealing to more voters.

DOBBS: A little political by any definition. In addition to suing the Justice Department, our next guest is calling for an investigation after newly released evidence shows that more than 900 people -- dead people -- appeared to have voted in recent elections in South Carolina where they have passed that ID law. Joining us now is South Carolina's attorney general, Alan Wilson. [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 1/11/12]

Fox News' Hemmer Helps SC Attorney General Use 900 Dead Voter Claim To Support SC's Voter ID Law. From the January 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

BILL HEMMER (co-host): There is a new law in that state that requires voters to show an ID when voting, a photo ID. Now the Justice Department is challenging state Republicans on that law, and this could be important here. Alan Wilson is the Attorney General. He is live down there in Columbia, South Carolina. Sir, good morning to you.

WILSON: Morning. 

HEMMER: Why is this an issue in the first place? 

WILSON: Well, first off, when the law was originally written it was written to protect citizens from fraudulent activity in the electoral process. It is important that the voters of our state have faith in the process by which we elect our leaders. So that was its original intent. 

HEMMER: But is there evidence that 900 dead people have voted in South Carolina? Is that part of your case? 

WILSON: That's right. When we were going through the process of getting this law precleared with the Department of Justice, we provided numbers that showed that this would have a minimal effect on minority voters, the elderly, and of course opponents of this bill said that this is trying, this is in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Well, subsequently, we found out that there were over 900 people who died and then subsequently voted. That number could be even higher than that, Bill. So this is just an example. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/12/12]

... But Election Official Who Introduced The Statistic Reportedly Said Absentee Ballots Or Data Errors Could Be The Cause

Palmetto Public Record: DMV Director Schwedo "Said Those 900 Voters Could Easily Have Voted Absentee Before Their Deaths." From a January 12 Palmetto Public Record (SC) article:

Supporters of the new Voter ID law are alleging fraud at the polls after the Department of Motor Vehicles director told a House panel that over 900 deceased South Carolinians appear to have voted, but the circumstances surrounding that statistic suggest it's merely the latest in a slew of dubious claims trotted out in an effort to win support for the discriminatory law.

DMV Director Kevin Schwedo -- who was overheard calling the media's presence a "setup" before the hearing -- made his claim to the Judiciary subcommittee right as Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson released a perfectly-timed statement claiming the number is clear evidence of voter fraud in South Carolina. But Schwedo himself said those 900 voters could easily have voted absentee before their deaths, and admitted he has no way of knowing. [Palmetto Public Record, 1/12/12]

The State: Schwedo Said 900 Deceased Voter Figure Could Be Explained By "Data-Reporting Problems Or Other Errors." From a January 12 article in The State (SC):

Analysts used records from the S.C. Election Commission, the S.C. Department of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Administration, Schwedo said. His office determined that about 957 people could have voted after they had died but said there could be data-reporting problems or other errors that would make the number lower.

Schwedo did not say when those questionable votes may have been cast -- whether over the past 20 years or two years. He said he examined the data because he wasn't satisfied with what was being presented by the S.C. State Election Commission. [The State, 1/12/12]

Deceased Voter Fraud Claims Are Often Revealed As Unfounded, Caused By Data Errors Or Absentee Voters Who Subsequently Died

Brennan Center: There Are Only A "Handful Of Known Cases" In Which Votes Were Cast In The Name Of Deceased Voters. From a 2007 report from the Brennan Center for Justice:

Allegations of "dead voters" are also popular, not least for the entertaining pop culture references to be found in the headlines: "Among Voters in New Jersey, G.O.P. Sees Dead People," for example, or "Dead Man Voting." After further investigation, however, these allegedly dead voters often turn up perfectly healthy.

There are a handful of known cases in which documentation shows that votes have been cast in the names of voters who have died before the vote was submitted.

It is far more common, however, to see unfounded allegations of epidemic voting from beyond the grave, with a chuckle and a reference to Gov. Earl Long's quip ("When I die -- if I die -- I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics.") or Rep. Charlie Rangel's update (same idea, but takes place in Chicago). [Brennan Center for Justice, "The Truth About Voter Fraud," 2007, footnotes excised]

Brennan Center: Allegations Of Fraud By Dead Voters Are Often Due To Flawed Matches Of Lists. From the 2007 report:

Here, too, flawed matches of lists from one place (death records) to another (voter rolls) are often responsible for misinformation. Sometimes the interpretation is flawed: two list entries under the same name indicate different individuals. Sometimes the lists themselves are flawed: as Hilde Stafford discovered in 2006, individuals who are in fact quite spry are occasionally listed as deceased on the Social Security Administration's master files. And sometimes, because of clerical error by election workers or voters or both, an individual is marked as voting when she did not in fact cast a ballot, or is marked as voting under the wrong person's name. For example, despite having died in 1997, Alan J. Mandel was alleged to have voted in 1998. On further investigation, Alan J. Mandell (two "l"s), who was very much alive and voting at the time, explained that local election workers simply checked the wrong name off of the list. Indeed, a 2007 investigation of about 100 "dead voters" in Missouri revealed that every single purported case was properly attributed either to a matching error, a problem in the underlying data, or a clerical error by elections officials or voters.

[...]

In Georgia in 2000, 5,412 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters over the past 20 years. The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up report clarified that only one instance had been substantiated, and this single instance was later found to have been an error: the example above, in which Alan J. Mandel was confused with Alan J. Mandell. No other evidence of fraudulent votes was reported.

[...]

In New Jersey in 2004, 4,755 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot. The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. No follow-up investigation publicly documented any substantiated cases of fraud of which we are aware, and there were no reports that any of these allegedly deceased voters voted in 2005.

[...]

In New York in 2002 and 2004, 2,600 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot, again based on a match of voter rolls to death lists. Journalists following up on seven cases found clerical errors and mistakes but no fraud, and no other evidence of fraud was reported. [Brennan Center for Justice, "The Truth About Voter Fraud," 2007, footnotes excised]

Brennan Center: In Other Cases, Investigations Found That "Dead Voters" Cast Absentee Ballots Before Their Deaths. From the 2007 report:

In other circumstances, the match is accurate but reveals nothing illegal about the vote: the voter has died, yes, but after casting her ballot. In Maryland in 1995, for example, an exhaustive investigation revealed that of 89 alleged deceased voters, none were actually dead at the time the ballot was cast. The federal agent in charge of the investigation said that the nearest they came was when they "found one person who had voted then died a week after the election."

[...]

In Michigan in 2005, 132 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters. The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up investigation by the Secretary of State revealed that these alleged dead voters were actually absentee ballots mailed to voters who died before Election Day; 97 of these ballots were never voted, and 27 were voted before the voter passed away. Even if the remaining eight cases all revealed substantiated fraud, that would amount to a rate of at most 0.0027%. [Brennan Center for Justice, "The Truth About Voter Fraud," 2007, footnotes excised]

Right-wing media are accusing first lady Michelle Obama of "play[ing] the race card" after she rebutted claims that she is an "angry black woman." Many of these same right-wing media figures, however, have for years invoked that very stereotype when criticizing her.

Michelle Obama: People Have Tried To Paint Me As An "Angry Black Woman"

Michelle Obama Shot Down Image That She Is "Some Kind Of Angry Black Woman." In an interview with CBS News' Gayle King, Michelle Obama noted that she has been consistently painted as "some kind of angry black woman," and added: "There will always be people who don't like me." From CBS News:

The Kantor book portrays a White House where tensions developed between Mrs. Obama and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and former press secretary and presidential adviser Robert Gibbs. The book, titled "The Obamas," describes Mrs. Obama as having gone through an evolution from struggle to fulfillment in her role at the White House, while labeling her an "unrecognized force" in pursuing the president's goals. Neither the president nor his wife agreed to be interviewed for the book.

"I do care deeply about my husband," Mrs. Obama said in the CBS appearance. "I am one of his biggest allies. I am one of his biggest confidants." But she sought to put aside "this notion that I sit in meetings."

"I guess it's just more interesting to imagine this conflicted situation here," she said. "That's been an image people have tried to paint of me since the day Barack announced, that I'm some kind of angry black woman."

"There will always be people who don't like me," Mrs. Obama added, and said she could live with that.

Mrs. Obama said that she's "just trying to be me, and I just hope that over time, that people get to know me." [CBS News, 1/11/12]

Damage Control: Right-Wing Media Accuse First Lady of "Play[ing] The Race Card"

Limbaugh: "Imagine That. She's Mad At Somebody For Portraying Her As Mad." Discussing Michelle Obama's comments to CBS, Rush Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Yes, I see Michelle Obama's mad while saying she's not. She's tired of the angry black woman image that she's got. She's mad at the New York Times reporter for stereotyping her as an angry black woman. Imagine that. She's mad at somebody for portraying her as mad. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/11/12]

Jim Hoft: "Michelle Obama Plays Race Card." Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft linked to the CBS News report and claimed Michelle Obama "played the race card":

[The Gateway Pundit, 1/11/12]

Fox Nation: "DAMAGE CONTROL." Fox Nation characterized Michelle Obama's comments as "damage control":

[Fox Nation, 1/11/12]

Michelle Obama Is Right: Right-Wing Media Constantly Stereotype Her As An "Angry Black Woman"

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly: Michelle Obama "Looks Like An Angry Woman." In September 2008, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said:

O'REILLY: Now, I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there's some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/16/08]

Fox News' Sean Hannity: Michelle Obama Sounds "So Bitter And Angry." On the May 11, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity said: "This week, Michelle Obama still sounds angry. ... As Michelle Obama stumps for her husband to be the next president of the United States, it seems she doesn't have many positive things to say about America. In fact, her speeches always seem to have a negative tone to them. It seems her view of the United States is one of despair and hopelessness." Hannity later added: "This raises the question, why does Michelle Obama sound so bitter and angry as she campaigns for the White House?" [Fox News' Hannity's America, 5/11/08, accessed via Nexis]

Fox News' Juan Williams: Michelle Obama "Sometimes Uses" A "Kind Of Militant Anger." On the August 25, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Juan Williams said of Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention: "Well, she's got to be herself, but I do not think she can go for it all out in terms of this kind of militant anger that she sometimes uses, you know. She can be, it seems, rather cynical or dismissive of people," adding, "I don't think she wants to get anywhere near the race issue, anywhere near the militance issue." [Fox News' America's Newsroom, 8/25/08]

John McLaughlin: "You Don't Think She's A Black Militant?" During a February 2008 discussion of Michelle Obama on the syndicated program, The McLaughlin Group, host John McLaughlin suggested that he's heard Michelle Obama "leaves the impression" that "she has a chip on her shoulder." He later asked guest Clarence Page, a columnist with the Chicago Tribune: "You don't think she's a black militant?" From the show:

McLAUGHLIN: Do you think Michelle -- do you think she leaves the impression -- not mine, but I've heard this -- that she has a chip on her shoulder?

PAGE: I think that's BS. You know, people say that she's got a chip on her shoulder. That's like, well, she's been the B-word, which is a classic, you know, epithet against women whenever they sound aggressive or they really state their mind. I --

McLAUGHLIN: You don't --

PAGE: I don't think that's true at all.

McLAUGHLIN: You don't think --

PAGE: Maybe I know her too well. She doesn't have a chip on her shoulder.

McLAUGHLIN: You don't think she's a black militant?

PAGE: A black militant? Well, I'm a black militant, John, and the Tribune hired me anyway. Seriously.

McLAUGHLIN: Really? [The McLaughlin Group, 2/24/08]

Tucker Carlson: Michelle Obama Has "Got A Chip On Her Shoulder." In February 2008, Tucker Carlson, then an MSNBC host, said:

CARLSON: I know that we're not allowed -- look, the press is so deeply in the tank for Barack Obama that there's, like, hostility if you mention this. But I have thought from Day One that Michelle Obama, impressive as she is, clearly intelligent, very handsome, self-possessed -- I think that she's got a chip on her shoulder. I think it's very obvious, and I think she's a distraction from her husband's campaign. And I think that this is going to be a significant problem going forward. And I thought her remark was telling. I'm in the minority on this, but I did think it was telling. [MSNBC, Tucker, 2/21/08]

Limbaugh: Michelle Obama "Is Angry All The Time." In June 2009, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Now, I firmly believe that Barack Obama has, as part of his agenda, to cut this nation down to size. And I believe one of the reasons for it, aside from whatever ideological beliefs he has, is that he's angry. This is a mad guy. He hung around people who were mad all of his life. His wife is angry all the time. Sonia Sotomayor is angry. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/4/09]

Limbaugh On Michelle Obama: "Why The Anger? Why The Balled Up Fists? Why The Rage?" On the July 13, 2010, edition of his show, Limbaugh talked about a speech Michelle Obama gave to the NAACP and said:

LIMBAUGH: Michelle "my belle" Obama at the NAALCP doing a keynote urging greater intensity. Something's not right. Something's not right. I mean, it should be -- shouldn't these people be happier than ever? I'm being serious. For the first time in over 200 years, a black man runs the country. His wife, a black woman, is first lady. Nobody ever thought that day would happen, certainly not 20 to 30 years ago. And here it has happened, and yet, the rancor, the anger, the outrage, the divisions in the country are greater than ever.

How is that? Why is this happening? Why is there not optimism and happiness? If not happiness, why not contentment? Why not a sense of accomplishment and achievement? It is a major achievement for the country and for the Obamas. Why the anger? Why the balled-up fists? Why the rage? [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/13/10]

O'Reilly: "I Don't Want To Go On A Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama Unless There's Evidence" She Thinks America "Is A Bad Country." In 2008, O'Reilly addressed a caller to his radio show, who had baselessly called Michelle Obama "very angry" and a "militant woman." O'Reilly said it was "not fair to Michelle Obama" to level those charges without direct evidence. He went on to say:

O'REILLY: That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down. [Westwood One, The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 2/19/08]

Neil Cavuto and Jim Hoft suggested that President Obama receiving 82 percent of the votes in the New Hampshire Democratic primary show Obama is struggling among Democrats and that New Hampshire voters "are sending a message that we don't like you." But all recent incumbent presidents who went on to win re-election received similar percentages of the votes in their New Hampshire primaries, and political expert Larry Sabato called the results "about normal."

Cavuto, Hoft Suggest Obama Primary Result Is A "Message" That Voters "Don't Like You"

Cavuto: Obama "Is Not Running Away With This." During Fox Business' coverage of the January 10 New Hampshire primaries, host Neil Cavuto claimed that President Obama was "not running away" with the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote and that the results at that point were "rather telling." Guest and former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain called Cavuto's claim "the big story" of the New Hampshire primary. Cavuto also claimed that President Clinton "got 96 percent of the Democratic vote" when "he ran up for re-election in 1996." From Fox Business' January 10 election coverage:

CAVUTO: We do want to let you know, if you'll indulge me, I do want to get your reaction to this. There is a primary going on the Democrat side, too. It doesn't get much attention. The president is officially unchallenged, but he is competing with eight other individuals in the state of New Hampshire. And this is rather telling -- it's still very early, but Gary, can we take a peek at this? I don't want to make an overly big deal of this, but there is a large number of write-in votes going on right now on in the Democratic primary for [candidates] other than Barack Obama. In fact, he is, that is the president, is scoring about three-quarters of the vote among Democrats, but he is not running away with this. Whereas Bill Clinton, when he ran up for re-election in 1996, got 96 percent of the Democratic vote.

Right now, Barack Obama is comfortably winning, but he had about 72 percent of the vote at last juncture, so you're just going to have to take me at my word here. I do have this here. That means 28 percent of Democrats voting in New Hampshire have voted for someone other than the president. Now, Herman, in and of itself, that's not revolutionary, but half of those 28 percent were write-in votes. Very early in the evening -- roughly 10 percent of the vote there, too. What do you make of that? 

CAIN: Neil, with all due respect, that's the big story.

CAVUTO: That's why I said it.

CAIN: The big story is -- exactly, that's why you're as good as you are. That is the big story, and that is, people are assuming that President Barack Obama wasn't going to be challenged, but even in New Hampshire, you've got write-in votes. And like you said, he didn't get the 96 percent that Bill Clinton got -- he's down to 72 percent. That means there is a very large amount of disillusioned Democrats that are not happy with President Barack Obama's track record in terms of his results. I think that that is the big story.

Cavuto later called the results "semi-dramatic" and stated that "normally when presidents run unopposed for re-election ... they get almost 100 percent of the vote." He then stated:

CAVUTO: Barack Obama, unchallenged in that state, still fighting off pesky write-ins and a host of others who a lot of New Hampshire Democrats have said, well, we prefer these alternatives. Not bad for Barack Obama, but keep in mind that close to one out of five Democratic voters in this state of New Hampshire are sending a message that we don't like you. We can tell you that much, we don't flip over you. [Fox News, Election 2012: New Hampshire Primary With Neil Cavuto, 1/10/12]

Hoft: "Ruh-Roh... Obama Gets Only 82% Of Democrat Vote In New Hampshire -- Running Unopposed." In a January 10 post on Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft wrote: "Rough night for Barack...With 83% of votes counted, only 82% of Democrat voters chose Obama in New Hampshire even though he was running unopposed. 10% of Democrats wrote in someone else. The total of all write-in votes was the second-most popular choice on the ballot." [Gateway Pundit, 1/10/12]

But Recent Incumbent Presidents Who Went On To Win Re-Election Achieved Similar NH Primary Results

Political Expert Sabato: Obama's Primary Results Are "About Normal." On January 10, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, noted via Twitter that Obama's New Hampshire primary results were "[a]bout normal." From Sabato's Twitter feed:

[Twitter, 1/10/12]

Reagan Received 86 Percent Of The Republican Primary Vote In 1984. According to New Hampshire State Department records, President Reagan won 86 percent of the vote in the state's Republican primary in 1984. From the New Hampshire Department of State:

 

[New Hampshire Department of State, State of New Hampshire Manual for the General Court No. 49, 1985, accessed via The University Of New Hampshire]

Clinton Received 84 Percent Of The Democratic Primary Vote In 1996.  Contrary to Cavuto's claim that Clinton "got 96 percent of the Democratic vote" in the 1996 New Hampshire primary, according to New Hampshire State Department records, Clinton won 84 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary in 1996. From the New Hampshire Department of State:

 

[New Hampshire Department of State, State of New Hampshire Manual for the General Court No. 55, 1997, accessed via The University Of New Hampshire]

George W. Bush Received 80 Percent Of The Republican Primary Vote In 2004. According to New Hampshire State Department records, President Bush won 80 percent of the vote in the state's Republican primary in 2004. From the New Hampshire Department of State:

[New Hampshire Department of State, State of New Hampshire Manual for the General Court No. 59, 2005, accessed via The University Of New Hampshire]

During an interview on Fox & Friends, Gary Bauer, president of conservative group American Values, claimed that the "overwhelming majority of the American people think that marriage is between a man and a woman." In fact, multiple polls conducted in 2011 show that a majority of Americans favor legalizing gay marriage.

Bauer Claims "Overwhelming Majority" Of Americans Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Bauer: "The Overwhelming Majority Of The American People Think That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman." On the January 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson interviewed American Values President Gary Bauer about his support for GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. After a clip of Santorum being booed during a forum at New England College was aired, Bauer said:

BAUER: I suspect, or at least I've read, that the booing was because -- shock of all shocks -- he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's what, of course, for several thousand years, marriage has been. The booers aren't offering much to the debate. Look, the overwhelming majority of the American people think that marriage is between a man and a woman. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/10/12]

But Bauer Is Wrong: Polls Show Majority Of Americans Support Gay Marriage

March 2011: Wash. Post-ABC Poll Finds 53 Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage And 44 Percent Oppose. From a March 18, 2011, Washington Post article:

A slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The results underscore the nation's increasingly tolerant views about homosexuals, and parallel a string of recent legal and legislative victories for gay rights advocates.

Five years ago, at 36 percent, support for gay marriage barely topped a third of all Americans. Now, 53 percent say gay marriage should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that a majority has said so. [The Washington Post, 3/18/11]

April 2011: CNN/Opinion Research Poll Finds 51 Percent Of Public Supports Gay Marriage And 47 Percent Oppose. An April 2011 poll conducted by CNN and Opinion Research found: "[M]ore than half of all Americans believe that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should be legally valid. With 51 percent of respondents saying that same-sex marriages should be legal, it is the first time that a CNN poll has found majority support for same-sex marriage." [CNN, Political Ticker, 4/19/11]

May 2011: Public Religion Research Institute Poll Finds 51 Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage And 43 Percent Oppose. A May 19, 2011, Public Religion Research Institute poll found that 51 percent of Americans favor "allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, compared to 43% percent [sic] who are opposed." [Public Religion Research Institute, 5/19/11]

May 2011: Gallup Poll Shows 53 Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage And 45 Percent Oppose. In a May 20, 2011, report on one of its polls, Gallup wrote, "For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages."

The report included this graph showing Gallup's findings on the question since 1996:

[Gallup, 5/20/11]

July 2011: Wash. Post-ABC Poll Finds 51 Percent Of Public Supports Gay Marriage And 45 Percent Oppose. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted from July 14-17, 2011, found that 51 percent of respondents said it should be "legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married," while 45 percent said it should be "illegal." [The Washington Post, accessed 1/10/12]

Fox News repeatedly claimed that new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks require operators to retrofit or discard their vehicles. In fact, the standards only apply to new trucks beginning with model year 2014.

Fox News Misrepresents Fuel Economy Standards For Trucks

Fox Falsely Claimed Truckers Will Have To Retrofit Or Get Rid Of Their Trucks. On the January 6 editions of Fox News' Happening Now and Special Report, as well as in a FoxNews.com article, correspondent Claudia Cowan claimed that the new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks require truckers "to upgrade what they have or buy a new rig. Not cheap."  [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/6/12][Fox News, Special Report, 1/6/12][FoxNews.com, 1/6/12]

NHTSA: The Rule "In No Way Affects The Trucks Currently Owned And Operated." Fox News attributed the fuel economy rules to the EPA, but the new standards were issued in a "joint rulemaking" by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. According to a NHTSA spokesman:

No truckers will need to upgrade or buy a new truck under the new medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency rule - the rule only applies to manufacturers, and only to trucks produced in MY 2014 and later. It in no way affects the trucks currently owned and operated. [Email correspondence, 1/6/12]

Rule Applies To New Trucks Starting In 2014. The final rule states:

EPA's final greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act will begin with model year 2014. NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory categories. Commercial trailers are not regulated in this phase of the Heavy-Duty National Program.

[...]

This action affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, school and transit buses, vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The heavy-duty category incorporates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or greater, and the engines that power them, except for medium-duty passenger vehicles already covered by the greenhouse gas emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued for light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles. [Federal Register, 9/15/11]

Trucking Industry Estimates That Operators Will Recover Up-Front Costs In 18-24 Months. In an August 2011 press conference, Bill Graves of the American Trucking Associations said "we believe that there is a return on investment in this rule for our fleets in that over the course of perhaps 18 to 24 months they're going to recover whatever cost is associated with this new fuel efficient equipment -- will be recovered through the savings in the fuel that they burn," and if "fuel prices spike beyond what we anticipate, it could be even sooner than that." Graves also said: "We've basically been stuck for probably the last quarter of a century without any significant fuel efficiency for a large commercial vehicle." [CQ Transcriptions, 8/9/11, via Nexis]

Federal Officials Calculate Fuel Savings Of $73,000 Over The Life Of A Semi-Truck. From the NHTSA press release:

The standards are expected to yield an estimated $50 billion in net benefits over the life of model year 2014 to 2018 vehicles, and to result in significant long-terms savings for vehicle owners and operators. A semi-truck operator could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year and realize net savings of $73,000 through reduced fuel costs over the truck's useful life.  These cost saving standards will also reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants like particulate matter, which can lead to asthma, heart attacks and premature death. [NHTSA, 8/9/11]

Union Of Concerned Scientists: Large Trucks "Account For 20 Percent Of National Fuel Use." From a Union of Concerned Scientists press release about the rule:

Combined with new passenger vehicle standards, by 2030 the United States will save more oil than it currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

The new standards will cover a range of truck categories, from long-haul tractor trailers to buses to cement mixers. They collectively represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road but account for 20 percent of national fuel use, according to UCS. The new standards will boost fuel efficiency and cut global warming pollution across these vehicle classes. For instance, the standards will reduce the fuel consumption of new long-haul tractor trailers nearly 20 percent by 2018.  These trucks, which often travel more than 100,000 miles annually, currently achieve an average of only about 6.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and consume the most fuel of all vehicle categories covered under the new rules. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 8/9/11]

Heavy-Duty Trucks Have Lagged Behind Other Vehicles In Fuel Economy Improvements. The following chart from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Review shows that there have not been improvements in the fuel economy of heavy-duty trucks for decades, unlike other vehicles which have been subject to federal fuel economy standards since the 1970s:

Fox Claims Rules Are "Circumventing Congress" -- But Congress Called For The Standards

Fox Claimed EPA Is "Circumventing Congress" With Fuel Economy Rules. On Special Report, Cowan stated, "Circumventing Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency is ordering heavy trucks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 percent and overhaul engine designs starting with models built in 2014." [Fox News, Special Report, 1/6/12]

Bush Energy Law Requires Regulation Of Heavy Trucks. A Congressional Research Service summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law by George W. Bush in December 2007, states: "The law requires the development of standards for 'work trucks' and commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles." [Congressional Research Service, 12/21/07]

Clean Air Act Requires Regulation Of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles. After the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases fall under the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant, EPA determined that GHGs endanger public health and welfare and began, in concert with NHTSA, setting joint fuel economy and emissions standards for passenger vehicles. The standards for heavy-duty trucks are an extension of that action. From the Clean Air Act:

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his [sic] judgement cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. [42 U.S.C. § 7521]

Fox Falsely Suggests EPA Must Get Rules Approved By Science Advisory Board

Fox Advanced Claim That EPA "Did Not Get These New Regulations Approved According To Proper Procedure." From the January 6 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

COWAN: Some of these truckers here in California say the Environmental Protection Agency did not get these new regulations approved according to proper procedure. Plaintiffs like Trucker Robert McClernon have hired a government watchdog legal group to argue that the EPA failed to submit its findings to a blue-ribbon panel called the Science Advisory Board as is required by law.

TED HADZI-ANTICH, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION: EPA missed a step and our organization is interested in making sure that the government complies with the law just like the rest of us do, and when EPA violates the law, like it did her, we're going to hold their feet to the fire.

COWAN: The EPA argues it posted all relevant information online, making it accessible for scientific review. But critics say it's not good enough and that the rules are less about clean air, more about pushing smaller operators out of the way. [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/6/12]

Science Advisory Board Has No Authority To Reject Or Change Rules. Transport Topics, a news publication owned by the American Trucking Associations, reported:

The California-based companies contend that EPA was under a legal requirement to send its proposed regulations to the SAB defore publishing them, but did not, Hadzi-Antich [of the Pacific Legal Foundation] said.

[...]

EPA is not legally required to make any changes to rules based on the SAB s comment, nor is it required even to make a comment, Hadzi-Antich said. EPA is only required to formally send the proposal to its SAB, which is an independent advisory board of scientists. [Transport Topics, 12/10/11]

Law Simply Requires EPA To "Make Available" Proposed Regulations. Fox News advanced the claim that EPA is "required by law" to "submit its findings" to the Science Advisory Board. In fact, the law states that the EPA "shall make available to the Board" the proposed regulation. The 1978 law established the Science Advisory Board to "provide such scientific advice as may be requested" by the EPA Administrator or Congress. [42 U.S.C. § 4365]

• Proposed Rule Was Made Available Online. Responding to comments from the Pacific Legal Foundation, the EPA said it "made the proposed rule and underlying support documents accessible and obtainable by publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, and by posting all of the scientific and technical support documents on the web." EPA further stated that "the proposed rule is consistent with, and based in part on the advice and recommendations of the National Academy of Science ... Under these circumstances, the NAS Report is a functional proxy for SAB review. We note further that the proposed rule does not present issues of cutting-edge science, but rather deal with technical engineering determinations of control technology effectiveness and cost." [EPA, August 2011]

Following the Obama administration's announcement of an overhauled defense strategy that will guide cuts in defense spending, the right-wing media have claimed President Obama is "weakening national security" and marking a "new milestone" in "America's strategic retreat." But experts have said that the proposed plan is fiscally responsible while remaining "the world's most dominant military."

Obama Instructs Military To Reduce Spending While Maintaining "Strategic Interests"

Reuters: Secretary Gates Initiated Review To Cut Spending "Without Jeopardizing The Country's Strategic Interests." From Reuters:

A review of U.S. strategic interests that will guide Pentagon budget cuts in coming years is expected to propose keeping fewer troops in Europe and abandoning the goal of maintaining a force that can fight and win two wars simultaneously, administration officials say.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will unveil the results of the eight-month strategic review on Thursday at a joint news conference with Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

[...]

The review was initiated by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates after President Barack Obama asked defense officials to cut some $400 billion in planned spending over 12 years without jeopardizing the country's strategic interests. [Reuters, 1/4/12]

Right-Wing Media Respond To Obama's Defense Plan By Claiming He's "Weakening America"

Limbaugh: Obama Is "Weakening National Security." During the January 5 broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks program, Rush Limbaugh said: "We have a president who's cutting the defense budget now. His priorities are winning the future, paying off his whacko donors and weakening national security in the process." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/5/12]

Kilmeade: "We Put Together This Fine Force, And In Our Generation, We Are Going To Rip It Apart." On the January 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade responded to the proposed defense cuts by claiming that "we put together this fine force, and in our generation, we are going to rip it apart." From Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: There's nothing wrong with cutting the budget and leaning it out and finding out if there's ways -- if salaries are too heavy a burden. But here's the thing. You cannot do this at the same time: Refuse to cut Medicare, refuse to cut the entitlement programs, increase spending on welfare, so the military has to be the sacrificial lamb, arguably the most successful -- the successful part of government in our history. We put together this fine force, and in our generation, we are going to rip it apart, and those generals that stood behind the president have to speak their minds, and General Dempsey, does he really agree with this as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Because it's outrageous. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/6/12]

Hoft: Obama Is "Weakening America And Punishing US Military Families At The Same Time." In a January 6 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft claimed that Obama "plans on putting half a million US soldiers and Marines out of work. ... It's his way of weakening America and punishing US military families at the same time." [Gateway Pundit, 1/6/12]

Rubin: Obama "Is Willing To Pare Back Defense Spending To Dangerously Low Levels So He Can Keep Spending." From a post by columnist Jennifer Rubin on The Washington Post's Right Turn blog:

President Obama is determined to have national security on the cheap. Or to put it more accurately, he is willing to pare back defense spending to dangerously low levels so he can keep spending like there's no tomorrow on the domestic side.

[...]

It is somewhat jaw-dropping in its cavalier attitude toward national defense. Obama does not even keep up the pretense that the threats determine our defense budget. He's decided to budget only enough for some threats. [The Washington Post, Right Turn, 1/5/12]

Washington Times: Defense Plan Is "A New Milestone Marking America's Strategic Retreat." In a January 5 editorial, The Washington Times claimed, "President Obama's new defense strategic-guidance document sends a clear message to America's adversaries: Go for it." From The Washington Times:

President Obama's new defense strategic-guidance document sends a clear message to America's adversaries: Go for it.

The Obama administration frequently produces major publications that belie their own titles. For example, the president's first of several budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits was titled "A New Era of Responsibility." The same could be said of "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership," the strategic document introduced with great fanfare at the Pentagon Thursday morning. This mini-Quadrennial Defense Review is an eight-page admission of American impotence.

[...]

The document is a new milestone marking America's strategic retreat. The Cold War-era requirement that the United States be able to fight and win "2 1/2 wars" was downgraded to "two major-theater wars" during the Clinton administration. Under the new guidance, we are down to a war and a half. "Even when U.S. forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region," it declares, "they will be capable of denying the objectives of - or imposing unacceptable costs on - an opportunistic aggressor in a second region." So, while Washington will pledge to defeat one adversary, in the second, smaller conflict, U.S. forces will only be able to play for a draw. This was a strategy that worked well in the Vietnam War - for our enemy. [The Washington Times, 1/5/12]

Fox's KT McFarland: Defense Plan Will "Invite Aggression Against U.S. Interests Around The World." In a January 5 FoxNews.com op-ed, Fox News national security analyst  KT McFarland claimed that "[t]he legacy of the Obama cuts will be even worse [than President Carter's], and invite aggression against U.S. interests around the world." From FoxNews.com:

Whose bright idea was it for the president of the United States to unveil his defense budget cuts the cusp of a crisis with Iran and in the Pentagon's briefing room? -- What were they thinking?

[...]

When I came into the Pentagon at the beginning of the Reagan administration we found ships that couldn't sail for lack of fuel, planes that couldn't fly because pilots didn't have the minimum training hours, and tanks that were patched together with spare parts cannibalized from other equipment. And most shameful of all, we had Vietnam Veterans whose medical needs were not met, and enlisted military personnel whose pay was so low they qualified for food stamps.

That was the legacy of the Carter administration's defense cutbacks. 

The legacy of the Obama cuts will be even worse, and invite aggression against U.S. interests around the world. Because, guess what, President Obama has only begun to cut back on America's defenses. There is another half trillion dollars of cuts on the horizon. [FoxNews.com, 1/5/12]

Experts: America "Would Still Be The World's Most Dominant Military" Under New Plan

Adams: America "Would Still Be The World's Most Dominant Military." A January 2 New York Times article quoted Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Stimson Center, as saying that the United States "would still be the world's most dominant military" after the defense cuts. From The New York Times:

"Even at a trillion dollars, this is a shallower build-down than any of the last three we've done," said Gordon Adams, who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House and is now a fellow at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit research group in Washington. "It would still be the world's most dominant military. We would be in an arms race with ourselves." [New York Times, 1/2/12]

NYT: "There Is Broad Agreement On The Left, Right And Center That $450 Billion In Cuts Over A Decade ... Is Acceptable." The New York Times article further noted:

Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America's ground forces.

There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade -- the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer -- is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon's base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions. [New York Times, 1/2/12]

Hurlburt: "How Dramatic Are These Changes? Not Very." In a January 5 post on The Huffington Post, National Security Network Executive Director Heather Hurlburt wrote:

How Dramatic Are These Changes? Not very. 2012 and 2013 Pentagon spending will represent the first real declines in military spending in more than a decade; but the total 8% cut envisaged is less than the Reagan defense builddown of the 1980s (yes, you read that right). As Colin Powell said: "When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was chairman and Mr. Cheney was secretary of Defense, we cut the defense budget by 25 percent. And we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers, so it can be done. Now, how fast you can do it and what you have to cut out remains to be seen, but I don't think the defense budget can be made, you know, sacrosanct and it can't be touched."

Moreover, even if the more dramatic cuts in the Budget Control Act sequester were enacted, they would only return the Pentagon to 2007 levels. (Dear Congress, please return the value of my house to its 2007 level. ASAP) On the strategic level, the much-ballyhooed move away from maintaining the ability to fight and win two regional wars simultaneously is less than meets the eye: the change has been discussed since the Cold War ended, and even as we fought two wars to something less than "wins" in Iraq and Afghanistan, military strategists have quietly moved toward a "win-hold-win" model where we have enough forces to, for example, respond to a North Korean attack while keeping the Taliban out of Kabul until Pyongyang was vanquished, and we could resume the mission in Afghanistan. [The Huffington Post, 1/5/12]

Korb: "Panetta's Pentagon Cuts Are Easier Than You Think."  In a January 4 post on Foreign Affairs, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb called the cuts "easier than you think" and explained that "the Pentagon does not have a resource problem ... it has a management problem." From Foreign Affairs:

This week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is expected to announce a strategy for cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget. Civilian and military leaders have reacted with apocalyptic warnings, decrying the disastrous impact such cuts will have. They claim that without proper resources the United States will not be able to protect its interests around the globe.

But the Pentagon does not have a resource problem. As even the Pentagon's strongest supporters agree, it has a management problem.

[...]

At the end of Eisenhower's first term, the defense budget was $380 billion in today's dollars; at Nixon's, it was $398 billion; and at George H.W. Bush's, it was $435 billion. At George W. Bush's, it was $478 billion and at the end of Barack Obama's, the baseline budget will be no less than $475 billion and probably closer to $525 billion. If Obama's military and civilian team cannot protect the nation with that much money, especially in the absence of an existential threat such as the Soviet Union, he needs to get a new team, especially a new deputy secretary of defense. [Foreign Affairs, 1/4/12]

Korb: "[W]e Are Still Going To Have An Army That Is Still Bigger Than It Was On 9/11." In a January 5 post on Yahoo News' The Envoy blog, Korb further stated:

"Even if we didn't have a financial crisis, we would redo the strategy," countered Larry Korb, former Reagan administration Pentagon assistant secretary and a national security expert at the progressive Center for American Progressive [sic], in an interview with Yahoo News Thursday.

[...]

"Again, we are still going to have an army that is still bigger than it was on 9/11," when it was at 480,000 troops, Korb continued. "If we got into two large ground wars again, we now know the [National] Guard and Reserves are pretty effective. You can call them up and use them. And if worse comes to worse, you still have the Selective Service and can get large forces going there."

"We are still spending more [on defense and the military] than the next ten countries combined," Korb added. [Yahoo News, The Envoy, 1/5/12]

CNAS' Andrew Exum: "[F]ew Of The Cuts Currently On The Table Will In Any Way Harm The Standing Of The United States As The World's Preeminent Military Power." In an January 6 email to Media Matters, Andrew Exum, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, stated that "few of the cuts currently on the table will in any way harm the standing of the United States as the world's preeminent military power":

Whenever you cut the budgets of the Dept. of Defense or the intelligence community, you assume some risk in terms of how readily the United States can meet national security threats. And in an election year, any cuts to the Dept. of Defense will quickly become political fodder. Most centrist defense analysts share the Obama Administration's conclusion that we can cut our ground forces and shift some forces out of Europe without assuming too much risk. Most defense analysts also share the concern of the Dept. of Defense that any further cuts brought on by sequestration would render the Dept. of Defense unable to accomplish all the tasks expected of it by civilian decision makers. For that reason, it is important that the U.S. Congress make whatever compromises they must make on tax increases and entitlements to prevent further immediate cuts to the budget. But few of the cuts currently on the table will in any way harm the standing of the United States as the world's preeminent military power. [Andrew Exum email to Media Matters, 1/6/12]

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham falsely claimed that abortion is the "core business" of Planned Parenthood, when, in fact, abortion services made up 3 percent of the organization's medical activities in 2010. Ingraham also claimed that Planned Parenthood spends $56 million per year on "lobbying"; it actually spent $56 million in 2010 on "public policy," which includes a variety of activities.

O'Reilly, Ingraham Falsely Claim Abortion Is Planned Parenthood's "Core Business"

Ingraham: "Abortion Is The Core Business Of Planned Parenthood." From the January 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

INGRAHAM: But the key fact is, Bill, that Planned Parenthood really exists -- it does all these other things for sure, but abortion is the core business of Planned Parenthood.

BILL O'REILLY (host): That is their core business, there's no doubt about it.

INGRAHAM: No doubt about it. No doubt about it. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/12]

Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Services Made Up 3% Of Medical Services Provided In 2010. From Planned Parenthood's 2009-2010 Annual Report:

[Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Annual Report 2009-2010, accessed 1/5/12]

Ingraham Baselessly Claims Planned Parenthood Spends $56 Million Per Year On "Lobbying"

Ingraham: "$56 Million A Year ... Spent On Lobbying By Planned Parenthood." From the O'Reilly Factor segment:

INGRAHAM: And Bill, $56 million a year, in this report, spent on lobbying by Planned Parenthood. That means the Democratic races, that means the presidency. They need a Democrat to be in control in the White House in order to get this money. That's their lifeline. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/12]

Planned Parenthood Annual Report: $56 Million Was Spent On "Public Policy." From Planned Parenthood's 2009-2010 Annual Report:

[Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Annual Report 2009-2010, accessed 1/5/12]

Planned Parenthood's Vice President For Public Policy Leads A Variety Of Activities, Including "Government Relations, Grassroots Organizing, Litigation, And Political Affairs." From the Planned Parenthood website:

Laurie Rubiner is vice president for public policy for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. Ms. Rubiner leads the organization's implementation of national and state strategies for improved public policies through government relations, grassroots organizing, litigation, and political affairs. [PlannedParenthood.org, accessed 1/5/12]