Right-wing media have attacked a proposed Obama administration rule change that would reduce the amount of time required for undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to apply for residency as "stealth amnesty" by a "lawless regime." But the proposed rule change would allow eligible immigrants to obtain a lawful return visa without a long separation from their families; moreover, immigrant-rights activists have said that the current system encourages people to remain here illegally.

Right-Wing Media Declare Proposed Rule Change "Stealth Amnesty" By A "Lawless Regime"

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration "Using Its Executive Powers To Grant Illegal Immigrants Backdoor Amnesty." In an April 2 post, the right-wing blog Judicial Watch reported on a proposed Department of Homeland Security rule change by claiming the agency was on a "quest to implement stealth amnesty" and that the Obama administration is attempting "to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty." From Judicial Watch:

In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them "unlawful presence waivers."

The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today's Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant "unlawful presence waivers" to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that's a U.S. citizen.

[...]

This appears to be part of the Obama Administration's bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas's largest newspaper published an exposé about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients' deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed. [Judicial Watch, 4/2/12]

Drudge Report: Rule Change Is "Stealth Amnesty." On April 4, The Drudge Report linked to the Judicial Watch post under the headlines, "Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers,'" and, "'Implement Stealth Amnesty.'" From The Drudge Report:

[Drudge Report, 4/4/12]

Jim Hoft: "Laws, What Laws?... Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" In an April 3 post on Gateway Pundit, right-wing blogger Jim Hoft posted a section of the Judicial Watch piece under the headline "Laws, What Laws?... Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" Hoft asked, "Is there any law this administration is willing to honor?" and concluded, "And the lawless regime rolls on." [Gateway Pundit, 4/3/12]

Fox Nation: "Obama Granting Illegals 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" On April 3, Fox Nation posted a portion of the Judicial Watch report under the headline, "Obama Granting Illegals 'Unlawful Presence Waivers.'" From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 4/3/12]

But Immigrants Would Still Have To Apply For A Visa To Re-Enter The Country Under The Rule Change

DHS Proposes Reducing Time Required For Undocumented Immigrants With Family In The U.S. To Apply For Legal Visa. According to the request for public comment issued in the April 2 Federal Register, DHS proposed a rule change that would reduce the amount of time undocumented immigrants with immediate family in the United States would have to wait before applying for a legal return visa. From the Department of Homeland Security:

Currently, certain spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens ("immediate relatives") who are in the United States are not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status (LPR) without leaving the United States because they entered the country unlawfully. These immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain an immigrant visa from the Department of State (DOS) and, in many cases, also must request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a waiver of the inadmissibility that resulted from their unlawful presence while they remain outside of the United States, separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or children. In some cases, waiver application processing can take well over a year, and the prolonged separation from immediate relatives can cause many U.S. citizens to experience extreme humanitarian and financial hardships. In addition, the action required for these immediate relatives to obtain LPR status in the United States -- departure from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad -- is the very action that triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i). As a result, many immediate relatives who may qualify for an immigrant visa are reluctant to proceed abroad to seek an immigrant visa.

The rule change further notes that return visas will be issued only to immigrants "if there are no other grounds of inadmissibility and if the immediate relative otherwise is eligible to be issued an immigrant visa." [Federal Register, 4/2/12]

AP: Immigrants With Families In U.S. Could Cut Down Time Required "To Return Here Legally." A January 6 Associated Press article about the administration's proposal noted that undocumented immigrants with families in the United States who have been issued one of the proposed waivers must still "seek a visa to return here legally." From the AP:

Currently, many illegal immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the federal government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

On Friday, the Obama administration proposed changing the rule to let children and spouses ask the government to decide on the waiver request before they head to their home country to seek a visa to return here legally.

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting a provisional waiver approved in advance would reduce the time they are out of the country from months to days or weeks. [AP, 1/6/12, via Yahoo News]

LA Times: Rule Change Would Benefit Immigrants "Seeking Legal Status." A March 30 Los Angeles Times article noted:

The Obama administration is proposing to make it easier for illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of American citizens to apply for permanent residency, a move that could affect as many as 1 million of the estimated 11 million immigrants living here illegally.

The new rule, which the Department of Homeland Security will post for public comment Monday, would reduce the time illegal immigrants are separated from their American families while seeking legal status, immigration officials said. Currently, such immigrants must leave the country to apply for a legal visa, often leading to long stints away as they await resolution of their applications. [LA Times, 3/30/12]

Immigrant Rights Groups Have Noted That Rule Change Would Reduce Delays In Reuniting Families

USCIS Director: Change Would "Minimize ... Bureaucratic Delays" Which "Separate Americans From Their Families." The AP article quoted U.S. Citizenship and Immigraion Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas noting that the change would reduce delays that "separate Americans from their families." From the AP:

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting a provisional waiver approved in advance would reduce the time they are out of the country from months to days or weeks, said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The purpose is "to minimize the extent to which bureaucratic delays separate Americans from their families for long periods of time," Mayorkas told reporters.

It currently takes about six months for the government to issue a waiver, Mayorkas said. [AP, 1/6/12 via Yahoo News]

AP: "Pro-Immigration Activists" Have Pointed Out That The Rule Change Would "Keep Families Together" And Possibly "Save Lives." From the AP article:

Pro-immigration activists and lawyers embraced the change, saying it would keep families together and encourage more people now in the United States illegally to emerge from the shadows and apply for visas. Some said it could even save lives.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado recalled the case of Tania Nava Palacios, who went to Ciudad Juarez -- a hotbed for drug-fueled violence -- with her American husband and son in pursuit of a waiver. Drug cartel members killed her husband last year, his office said in a statement.

Kelly Alfaro, of Washington state, said her husband, Guillermo, waited in Mexico for eight months last year after he had his visa interview in Ciudad Juarez.

"I was terrified for his safety because I know how dangerous it is there and I had no way of knowing how long he would have to stay in Mexico," she said. [AP, 1/6/12, via Yahoo News]

Immigration Attorney: Rule Change Would Alter Current System Which "Encourag[es] People To Remain Illegal." From the LA Times article:

Many immigrants who might seek legal status do not pursue it out of fear they will not receive a "hardship waiver" of strict U.S. immigration laws: An illegal immigrant who has overstayed a visa for more than six months is barred from reentering the U.S. for three years; those who overstay more than a year are barred for 10 years.

Lisa Battan, an immigration attorney based in Boulder, Colo., said the current process is "encouraging people to remain illegal."

[...]

Abel Aguirre de la Cruz and his wife, Jessica Martinez, a U.S. citizen, were carjacked at gunpoint with their infant child in November 2010 in Fresnillo, Mexico, while going through the waiver application process, according to Battan, the Colorado-based lawyer, who represents the couple. On March 15, 20 months after the family first applied for a waiver, the consulate in Juarez requested more information. [LA Times, 3/30/12]

American Immigration Lawyers Association:  Rule Change "Is A Positive Step For Keeping Families Together" And "Will Literally Save Lives." In a March 30 press release, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) pointed out that the rule change will "keep families together" and "save lives." From AILA:

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) commends the Department of Homeland Security's proposal to change its processes to enable spouses and children of U.S. citizens physically present in the United States to apply within the U.S. for the waiver they need to become U.S. permanent residents. The current procedure requires the spouse or child to leave the United States, file the waiver application in the home country, and wait for processing while separated from their U.S. citizen loved ones.

[...]

"Today's proposed change, permitting the waiver request to be decided stateside, is a positive step for keeping families together. It would result in a significant change in process for many individuals and, if implemented, will literally save lives. People have been kidnapped and murdered waiting for waivers in Juarez, Mexico, and other countries," said Eleanor Pelta, President of AILA. "It's a move that will be less destructive to families and bring about a fairer and more streamlined waiver process. [AILA, 3/30/12]

Catholic Legal Immigration Network: "The Current Process Has Caused Prolonged Family Separation." In an April 2 press release, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) noted that the change would alter "the current process" which "has caused prolonged family separation." From CLINIC:

[T]he current process has caused prolonged family separation as individuals await adjudication of their waiver application in their home country. The proposed pre-adjudication measure allows individuals to apply for and receive a preliminary decision on their waiver application before departing the United States.

"The issuance of this proposed rule constitutes a meaningful and very positive step towards ensuring that the process of legalizing one's status does not come at the high price of being separated, often for years, from one's loved ones," said Maria M. Odom, executive director of CLINIC. "CLINIC supports the overall proposed rule and looks forward to providing detailed commentary over the next 60 days, noting that there are still fundamental areas in which the rule can be improved. It was disappointing to learn that this important benefit will be unavailable to those who have already been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview abroad, penalizing those who have already taken meaningful steps to legalize their status." [CLINIC, 4/2/12]

Conservative media are on the attack after President Obama responded to a question about the Supreme Court's consideration of the Affordable Care Act by pointing out that conservatives criticize "unelected" judges who engage in "judicial activism" to "overturn a duly constituted and passed law." But Obama is right: for years conservatives have railed against "unelected" judges who overturn laws passed by the people's representatives.

Obama: Conservatives Criticize "Unelected" Judges Who Engage In Judicial Activism

Obama Reminds Conservatives That They Often Attack "Unelected" Judges Who "Overturn A Duly Constituted And Passed Law." From President Obama's April 2 press conference:

OBAMA: Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step. [WhiteHouse.gov, 4/2/12] 

Conservative Media: Obama's Criticism Of The Court Was "Unnerving"

NY Post's Podhoretz: Obama's Reference To An "Unelected Group Of People" Was "Unnerving." From John Podhoretz's April 2 New York Post column headlined "A Supremely brazen attack": 

Yesterday, Barack Obama made the tautological assertion that "I am confident the bill will be upheld because it should be upheld," which almost seemed to threaten the court if it disagrees with his contention.

Referring to the nine justices unnervingly as an "unelected group of people," he then said he was certain "the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." [New York Post, 4/2/12] 

Tucker Carlson Responds To "Unelected Group Of People": "This Is What The Supreme Court Does." From the April 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier: 

BRET BAIER (host): We had some Democrats out there saying he is already running against Congress. And now he may be running against the Supreme Court. I mean, the sentence, "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law."  

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, this is what the Supreme Court does. It overturns -- of course, I mean that's part of its charter is to overturn laws that don't comport with the Constitution. And by the way, his claim that this is somehow, you know, a tangible argument, you know, the court shouldn't approach this as abstract argument, abstract arguments are what they take up. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/2/12]

Fox Nation: "Obama Takes Aim At Supreme Court, Calls Them 'Unelected Group Of People.' " From an April 3 post on Fox Nation:

 [Fox Nation, 4/3/12]

But Conservatives Have Repeatedly Criticized "Unelected" Judges Who Rule In Ways They Dislike

Republican Presidential Candidates Have Criticized "Unelected Judges."

• Romney Criticized Judges Who Struck Down California Same-Sex Marriage Ban As "Unelected Judges" Who "Cast Aside The Will Of The People." From the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pounced after a federal appeals court ruled that a voter-approved ban on gay marriage in California violated the Constitution.

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said in a written statement. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices." [Associated Press, 2/7/12]

• Santorum: "Unelected Judges" Should Not Impose Their Views On Gay Marriage, "The Great Moral Issues Of Our Time," On Others. From the October 29, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

SANTORUM: Yes, my opponent and I are very different on this issue. He said he would fight against any state or federal constitutional amendment that would secure the right of the people to define what marriage is. He would allow the courts to impose a redefinition of marriage.

I don't believe in that. I believe on the great moral issues of our time, the people have a right to speak and say what their collective morality is, the kind of country that they want to live in, and a few unelected, in some cases, or even elected, judges should not impose that. He would go along with the unelected judges. He supports civil unions. He supports, in a sense, gay marriage without the word marriage. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 10/29/06, via Nexis]

Other Republican Officials Have Criticized "Unelected Judges."

• Sen. Cornyn: "Unelected Judges ... Have Occasionally Used This Power Conferred Upon Them In The Constitution To Impose Their Own Views." From a 2009 Senate floor speech by Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn (R-TX) on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

CORNYN: Supreme Court Justices have always had tremendous power within our constitutional system of separated and enumerated powers. In recent decades, growing concern has arisen over judicial activism on the Court, which has the necessary consequence of taking power away from the elected representatives, and thus the people themselves, and conferring it to those with life tenure, unelected judges who have occasionally used this power conferred upon them in the Constitution to impose their own views and their own agenda on the American people and substituting that for the views of their elected representatives. [Senate floor speech, 7/24/09]

• Sen. Grassley: Some "Unelected Judges" Long For "Power That, Under Our Constitution, Self-Governing People Exercise Themselves." From a 2012 Senate floor speech by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

GRASSLEY: We need to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We need to preserve, protect, and defend the rights of American citizens. Justice Ginsburg and others who have a judicial longing for other constitutions that protect different rights and give unelected judges power that, under our Constitution, self-governing people exercise themselves -- I tell those judges, including Justice Ginsburg, that is the wrong approach. [Senate floor speech, 3/29/12]

Conservative Media And Activists Attack "Unelected Judges."

• Fred Barnes Criticized "Four Unelected Judges" Who Overturned California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage. From the May 16, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARNES: And the issue for John McCain, for instance, is judicial activism. This is a case where 4.6 million Californians had voted to say marriage had to be between a man and woman a few years ago, and then you get four unelected judges who say there is a fundamental right in the California constitution to get married and form a family.

Nobody had ever seen that right there before, but this is what drives conservatives -- and not just conservatives --crazy: judges dreaming up new rights.

And probably they are unnecessary in this case, because California, the legislature, had passed a gay marriage Bill that had been vetoed twice by Governor Schwarzenegger. The next governor will probably be a Democrat that will sign it.

And, besides, I think this puts the gay rights movement, which has been winning the argument, basically, if you believe the polls, and I do, in the worst possible light, that it takes four unelected judges to impose this gay marriage on an unwilling public. [Fox News, Special Report with Brit Hume, 5/16/08, via Nexis]

• Focus On The Family Founder James Dobson Railed Against "Unelected Judge" Who Refused To Let The Ten Commandments Be Displayed In The Alabama Supreme Court. From the March 4, 2004, edition of Fox News' now-defunct Hannity & Colmes:

DOBSON: Well, it all depends on the way you look at that. If you talk to Judge Moore, he was attempting to carry out his oath of office. That was the rule of law.

And here again you have an unelected judge who came in there and decreed that you could not acknowledge God in Alabama.

Judge Moore ran on a platform saying he was going to put that monument where it was, and he told the American -- I mean, the people of Alabama that. And they elected him by a 70 percent majority. That is the rule of law. [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 3/4/04, via Nexis]

• Laura Ingraham: "We Don't Want To Be Micromanaged By Some Unelected Judge." From the September 15, 2003, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

INGRAHAM: We believe in our God and we like to have our freedom. We don't want to be micromanaged by some unelected judge or some unelected bureaucrat on the international or national level. [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 9/15/03, via Nexis]

• Social Conservative Advocate Gary Bauer: "Unelected Judges ... Are Trying To Force [Same-Sex Marriage] On The American People." From the October 10, 2000, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BAUER: Well, Bill, there's a gigantic battle going on all over the country, including in Vermont, on the definition of marriage. This country has been built, broadly speaking, on a Judeo-Christian value system. In fact, all of western civilization has been. And that value system has always said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

In this country, every time the people have had a chance to address this issue, they vote for marriage being a man and a woman. It's only unelected judges, the liberal judges you've railed about, that are trying to force this on the American people. And a conservative Republican ticket ought to be bold enough to say look, we're in favor of traditional marriage. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/10/00, via Nexis]

Conservatives Have Also Repeatedly Criticized "Judicial Activism"

Rep. King: "Judicial Activism" Has "Begun To Break Down This Civilization And This Culture." From a 2012 House floor speech by Rep. Steve King (R-IA):

KING: 1965, no, excuse me; I'll go back to 1963, Mr. Speaker. There was a case called Murray v. Curlett, and I don't know that that is very well universally recognized, but that was the case that took prayer out of the public schools. There was an argument made before the activist court in 1963 that there was a separation of church and state, and that that separation of church and state was firm enough and solid enough that we could not pray in our public schools because that advocated for a religion.

And so I'll read to you the language that surely had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court justices. It says, Congress shall make -- this is the First Amendment, Mr. Speaker -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And it goes on, of course, freedom of speech, the press, and the right of the people to assemble.

It says Congress shall make no law. There was no law that came from Congress that established a religion. The law that Congress made just didn't exist with religious freedom because Congress understood that the First Amendment means what it says. The textual reading and the original understanding said Congress shall not establish a religion. We're not going to be like Sweden, establishing Lutheranism as a state religion. We're going to have freedom of religion, but it shall not establish a religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

But if you believe in judge-made law, the Supreme Court, by that decision in 1963, Murray v. Curlett, outlawed prayer in the public schools by a court decision. I think it's in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If we're going to respect judge-made law and stop praying in our public schools, that was the beginning of the judicial activism that's begun to break down this civilization and this culture. I think those decisions needed to be made at the local school level, not at the Supreme Court level. [House of Representatives floor speech, 3/1/12, emphasis added] 

Sen. McCain: "Judicial Activism Demonstrates A Lack Of Respect For The Popular Will, And That Is At Fundamental Odds With Our Republican System Of Government." From an 2009 Senate speech statement by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): 

McCAIN: Activist judges -- regardless of whether it is liberal or conservative activism -- assume the judiciary is a superlegislature of moral philosophers, entitled to support Congress's policy choices whenever they choose. I believe this judicial activism is wrong and is contrary to the Constitution.

Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and dispersement of power. It solely tasks the Congress with creating law, not the courts. I have a long history of opposing activist judges. Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will, and that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. I believe a judge should seek to uphold all acts of Congress and State legislatures, unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution, and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner which creates new law. That is a fundamentally conservative position I have held throughout my career. [Senate floor speech, 10/21/09]

Charles Krauthammer: Judicial Activism Is "Generally The Practice Of The Left, For Example On Abortion, Overturning The Laws In 50 States With One Act Of Will On The Part Of The Supreme Court." From the March 27 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:      

SHANNON BREAM (guest host): Charles, early on, folks who were in the courtroom who do not like the law seemed very encouraged by Justice Kennedy's remarks. But, as Liz said, he did have other remarks later on that suggested he has not actually made up his mind.

[...]

KRAUTHAMMER: The other outside chance is that the chief justice -- I think he as a conservative is instinctively inclined judicial activism, which is generally the practice of the left, for example on abortion, overturning the laws in 50 states with one act of will on the part of the Supreme Court. There is some hesitation on his part I think for the court to act particularly if it's a one vote majority to overturn a law as broad, sweeping, and important as Obamacare, particularly since was debated for almost a year and a half and in the end passed the Congress and got the signature of the president. So I think he might be, and there is an outside chance of him being a defector of this simply on the grounds of not appearing to be a judicial activist and in some way I think eroding the legitimacy of the court has an arbiter that leaves legislation generally alone. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 3/27/12, via Nexis] 

Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle: Overturning Of California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Was An Act Of "Judicial Activism" That "Stripp[ed] The Will Of The Voters, Of The People Of The State Of California." From the February 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:  

BILL O'REILLY (host): "Is It Legal Segment" tonight, back in 2008 Californians voted on whether or not to approve gay marriage. The folks decided no, that marriage should stay between a man and a woman in the Golden State. Now, that started inevitable court challenges and today the very liberal Ninth Circuit of Appeals nullified the gay marriage vote in a two to one decision.

Here now to explain it all, attorneys and Fox News analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl. California voters basically just, you know, two judges basically said you know what; don't really care about you. What you want really doesn't matter because we say this is unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry.

LIS WIEHL, FOX NEWS ANALYST: That is what they said. They said voters don't count or matter if voters they take away a benefit that was bestowed on a group of people -- gay marriage here is the case -- without a legitimate reason to further a state interest. These two judges could find no legitimate reason that people shouldn't be allowed --

O'REILLY: Do you really think they looked to find a legitimate reason? Because I don't.

All right. Look, the legitimate reason is that the majority of Californians, Guilfoyle --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Yes.

O'REILLY: -- and you used to live in that state, of course -- felt that society is stronger by having the standard of marriage between a man and a woman; that the family unit is stronger. That basically the benefit ripples across when you hold up man, woman because of nature, because of a million different reasons, all right? Everybody is different on the issue. The judges said, you know, that's no reason. You know.

GUILFOYLE: You had 2-1 decision. Of course the two judges that ruled in favor of both were appointed by Democratic president. President Carter and then the one dissenting was the one appointed by Bush.

But now this is going to go -- it's going to be appealed. This will go en banc to the entire circuit court.

O'REILLY: They will rule the same way in the Ninth Circuit.

GUILFOYLE: They will rule the same way --

O'REILLY: And then it will go to --

GUILFOYLE: it will go to Supreme Court.

O'REILLY: But isn't this judicial activism?

GUILFOYLE: Well, it is. I mean many people view and correctly I think, it's stripping the will of the voters of the people of the state of California. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 2/7/12, via Nexis] 

Right-wing media are attacking President Obama over comments he recently made in which he pointed out that if the Supreme Court decides to strike down the Affordable Care Act, it will be an "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" step. In fact, the Supreme Court has not struck down a central provision of a landmark federal statute since the 1930s.

Obama: Overturning Health Care Law Would Be An "Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step"

Obama: "I'm Confident" Supreme Court Won't Take "Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step" Of Overturning Major Legislation. During an April 2 joint press conference from the White House Rose Garden, President Obama said:

And I think it's important, and I think the American people understand, and ... I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step. [The White House, 4/2/12]

Right-Wing Media Claim Obama's Comments Are Evidence He's "Rejecting" Judicial Review

Fox's Napolitano: Obama Is "Rejecting" Judicial Review Which "Has Not Been Seriously Questioned In 175 Years." On the April 3edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed Obama was "rejecting a basic premise of American law that has not been seriously questioned in 175 years." From Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): He's calling the Supreme Court an unelected group of people? Judge Andrew Napolitano joins us live. What was he doing yesterday?

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, we were scratching our heads when we were watching this and had it played over and over again because this is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the head of the Harvard Law Review and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Two of the best law schools in the country and he's rejecting a basic premise of American law that has not been seriously questioned in 175 years, which is this.

The courts have the right to review what the Congress does and what the president does and if the court finds that behavior unconstitutional, they can void, they can invalidate what the Congress and the president does. That's our system. That's what preserves the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority. No president has questioned this since Andrew Jackson! [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/3/12]

WSJ: "What's Up With That 'Unprecedented'?" In an April 2 editorial, The Wall Street Journal questioned Obama's claim that overturning the health care law would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary, step." From the editorial:

President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?

[...]

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.[The Wall Street Journal, 4/2/12]

The Blaze: "Decision Blocking Laws That Are Passed By 'Strong Majorities' Is Not So 'Unprecedented." On April 2, The Blaze reported:

How accurate is Obama's charge of "judicial activism," though? While it's true that the Supreme Court has at times deferred to the will of Congress, or of state legislatures, a decision blocking laws that are passed by "strong majorities" is not so "unprecedented" as he might think. In fact, the Court struck down an act of Congress as recently as 1996 - specifically, the Line Item Veto Act, which passed the Senate by 69-29, and passed the House by unanimous consent. This is a much stronger majority than existed in the case of Obamacare, and ironically, the judges who struck the law down were (with the exception of Clarence Thomas) all from the liberal wing of the court. Another case where the Court struck down a law passed by the Federal Congress concerned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In fact, very recently, the Court arguably took on both the President and the Congress in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which not only ruled that the Bush administration could not try detainees under military commissions without express authorization from Congress, but explicitly set aside an existing act of Congress which arguably removed the Court's jurisdiction over the case. Again, the majority in this case consisted of liberal justices, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. [The Blaze, 4/2/12]

In Fact, Striking Down Health Care Law Would Be "Unprecedented" And "Extraordinary"

Cohn: "Rarely In American History Has The Court Struck Down Laws In Decisions That Would Have Such Quick, Widespread Impact." In a March 29 post to The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:

Rarely in American history has the Court struck down laws in decisions that would have such quick, widespread impact. In the modern era, only two cases come to mind: Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Both were acts of ambitious, even audacious judicial activism. But, in two key [respects], they were different from a potential ruling against the Affordable Care Act.

Brown was a unanimous, nine-to-zero decision. Roe was a lopsided seven-to-two. These margins mattered: The justices knew that their decisions would be controversial, in part because they were overruling democratically elected majorities--in these cases, state legislators who'd passed laws enforcing segregation and prohibiting abortion. The justices' authority in these cases derived, in part, from their moral authority. A closely divided bench would have made that impossible.

Virtually everybody agrees that a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act would be five to four--a bare majority. And it would bea bare partisan majority, with the five Republican appointees overruling the four Democratic appointees. The decision would appear nakedly partisan and utterly devoid of principle. Appearances would not be deceiving. [The New Republic, 3/29/12]

Drum: "Very, Very Rarely Has" Supreme Court "Overturned A Major Piece Of Federal Legislation." In an April 1 Mother Jones article, Kevin Drum wrote:

There are two ways to look at this. The first is through the lens of what it would actually mean to overturn Obamacare. On this score, Jonathan [Cohn] is right: it would be unprecedented. The Supreme Court has handed down plenty of big decisions before, but very, very rarely has it overturned a major piece of federal legislation. Not since the mid 30s, in fact. What's more, it would be overturning this legislation -- a consummately political compromise forged in a consummately political area of public policy -- based on a distinction that I think even most of Obamacare's critics would acknowledge is a very fine point of constitutional law. And that's not all. It would be overturning the law on a party-line 5-4 vote, and it would be doing so in the wake of oral arguments in which several of the justices made arguments so transparently political that it felt more like we were listening in on the Senate cloakroom than the chambers of the Supreme Court.

So yes: in terms of its actual impact, overturning Obamacare would be a very big deal indeed, and among a large chunk of the chattering classes it would certainly lead to a more jaundiced view of the modern Supreme Court as a nakedly political body. [Mother Jones, 4/1/12]

Jeffrey Toobin: It Is "A Grave And Unusual Step For Unelected, Unaccountable, Life-Tenured Judges To Overrule" Government. In an article for the April 9 issue of the New Yorker, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote:

The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are riding on the outcome of the case are already entered "into commerce," because others are likely to pay their health-care costs.

Kennedy's last point, about the "heavy burden" on the government to defend the law, was correct--in 1935. That was when the Supreme Court, in deciding Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States--a case involving the regulation of the sale of sick chickens--struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, a principal domestic priority of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the ground that it violated the Commerce Clause. Two years later, however, the Court executed its famous "switch in time that saved the Nine" and began upholding the reforms of the New Deal. The Justices came to recognize that national economic problems require national solutions, and they deferred to Congress, usually unanimously, to provide those solutions, under the Commerce Clause.

For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the clause to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. "It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination," Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. "But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed -- what means are to be employed -- is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress." In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The "heavy burden" is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is -- or should be -- a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government. [The New Yorker, 4/9/12]

SCOTUSBlog: "The Court Rarely Strikes Down Major Laws That Are A Central Part Of The Political Agenda Of The President And His Party." In an August 10, 2011 post on SCOTUS blog, Ilya Somin, an associate professor at the George Mason University School of Law pointed out that "the Court rarely strikes down major laws that are a central part of the political agenda of the president and his party." From SCOTUS blog:

Nonetheless, the federal government probably has a better chance than the plaintiffs. The Court's four most liberal Justices have consistently refused to recognize any meaningful limits on Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the mandate will be upheld if even one of the five conservatives votes in its favor. And the conservatives have often been a fractious bunch in federalism cases. For example, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia voted to uphold a sweeping assertion of federal power in Gonzales v. Raich, which ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce authorizes Congress to ban the possession of medical marijuana that had never crossed state lines or been sold in any market. Furthermore, the Court rarely strikes down major laws that are a central part of the political agenda of the president and his party. [SCOTUS blog, 8/10/11]

Fox Nation has seized on the bankruptcy filing of solar energy company Solar Trust to suggest that "taxpayers" would "lose $2 billion" because of the bankruptcy. However, Solar Trust did not receive loan guarantees from the federal government.

Fox Claims Solar Trust "Received A $2.1 Billion Conditional Loan Guarantee" Before Bankruptcy

Fox Nation: "Another Obama Solar Company Goes Bankrupt ... Taxpayers Lose $2 BILLION?" An April 2 post on Fox Nation linked to a recent Associated Press article with the headline:

Beneath an excerpt of the article was a VentureBeat.com article from April 2011 that stated, "The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded a $2.1 billion loan guarantee to Solar Trust of America for a solar thermal power plant near Blythe, Calif." [Fox Nation, 4/2/12]

But Solar Trust Never Received "$2 Billion" In Government Loans

Wash. Post: When DOE Offered Solar Trust "A $2.1 Billion Loan Guarantee," Company "Turned It Down." From a September 26, 2011, Washington Post article:

Uwe T. Schmidt, chief executive of Solar Trust, says he is a fan of the Energy Department's loan-guarantee program. He met with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the program's director, Jonathan Silver, when his company was seeking support for a 1,000-megawatt solar thermal plant it wanted to build in the California desert in Riverside County.

But when the department offered him a $2.1 billion loan guarantee, Schmidt turned it down. It would have been one of the largest stimulus-funded clean-technology projects, and Solar Trust had been negotiating the deal for roughly a year. But Schmidt decided it was too risky.

"I'm now famous for getting the largest loan guarantee and then turning it down," Schmidt said. "For very sound business reasons, we opted not to go forward." [The Washington Post, 9/26/11]

Electric Utility Week: "Solar Trust Changes Technology For California Project, Walks Away From $2.1B Loan Guarantee." From an August 29, 2011, article in Electric Utility Week:

A California developer has significantly altered the technology it will use to build a massive solar power plant in the Sonoran Desert, a move that makes it ineligible for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee that the Energy Department offered the company just a few months ago.

Solar Trust of America, based in Oakland, initially planned to use concentrating solar technology for the first 500-MW phase of the 9-square-mile power plant it intends to build near Blythe, about 200 miles west of Los Angeles. But Solar Trust announced last week that it will now use photovoltaic panels for at least the first phase of the project, which the company said are less expensive.

That decision allows Solar Trust to finance the project in the commercial banking market. But it also means that Solar Trust will walk away from the $2.1 billion loan guarantee that DOE conditionally awarded it in April -- the largest non-nuclear loan guarantee that the department has awarded to date.

"Improved conditions for solar PV projects in the commercial bank market made pursuing commercial financing a more attractive strategy at this time," Edward Sullivan, Solar Trust's vice president of communications and external affairs, said in an email.

Solar Trust's move makes it at least the third company to spurn a proffered DOE loan guarantee. [Electric Utility Week, 8/29/11, via Nexis]

After the EPA proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, several conservative media outlets claimed that the new rule would increase electricity prices for consumers by prohibiting the construction of coal plants without carbon dioxide controls. But economists and other analysts say that because low natural gas prices are already suppressing coal-plant growth, the rule will not significantly affect electricity rates.

Analysts Say New EPA Rule Will Have Little To No Impact On Electricity Prices

EPA "Does Not Anticipate Any Notable Impacts On The Price Of Electricity." The Environmental Protection Agency's Regulatory Impact Analysis of its proposed rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants states that "Under a wide range of electricity market conditions - including EPA's baseline scenario as well as multiple sensitivity analyses - EPA projects that the industry will choose to construct new units that already meet these standards, regardless of this proposal." According to the analysis, "the Agency does not anticipate any notable impacts on the price of electricity or energy supplies." [Environmental Protection Agency, 3/27/12]

Brookings Economist: "EPA Rule Will Have No Significant Effect On Electricity Prices." Syracuse University economics professor and Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Peter Wilcoxen said that "the EPA rule will have no significant effect on electricity prices":

The idea that the new regulations will shut down the coal industry is nonsense. The new rules only bear on new power plants (and exempt those already in the planning stages), so existing coal-fired power plants are unaffected and can continue burning coal.

One might argue that the ruling will limit the *growth* of the coal sector but that's not correct either: coal's growth would be very limited anyway due to the low cost of natural gas and the very high capital cost of new coal plants. To put it simply: the life-cycle costs of coal-fired power are considerably higher than gas-fired power. This is not a theoretical matter: over the last decade, the electric power sector has responded by adding more than about 200 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity and about 2 gigawatts of coal.  The US now has considerably more gas-fired capacity than coal-fired capacity and low gas prices will accelerate that trend even without the EPA decision.

Finally, because it only rules out an expensive option that wouldn't have been used anyway, the EPA rule will have no significant effect on electricity prices. [Email to Media Matters, 4/2/12]

Harvard's Robert Stavins: Given Low Natural Gas Prices, New Coal Regulation "Will Have Absolutely No Effect Whatsoever" On Electricity Prices. Professor Robert Stavins, Director of Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and a proponent of more market-based approaches to greenhouse gas regulations, explained that as long as natural gas prices remain low, there will be no new coal plants under construction. Therefore, EPA regulations on new plants will have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the price of electricity. He also noted that under these conditions, the new rule will have no environmental benefits. [Phone conversation with Media Matters, 4/2/12]

Bipartisan Policy Center: Rule Will Have "Very Little, If Any, Impact" On Electricity Rates. Jennifer Macedonia of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote:

The rule is neither expected to reduce huge amounts of carbon emissions, nor will it kill a swath of power plants. In fact, the proposed regulation will have very little, if any, impact on actual power plants, jobs, electricity rates, or pollution. Still, it represents an historic step in the debate over actions to curb climate change and in the long term future of coal-fired electricity generation. [Bipartisan Policy Center, 3/30/12]

Rule Applies Only To New Coal Plants, Which Few Wanted To Build Anyway

Major Coal-Powered Utility Said New EPA Rule "Won't Have Much Of An Impact" On Business. American Electric Power, one of the largest U.S. utilities, told the National Journal that the new EPA rule "doesn't cause immediate concern" for the company:

Even one of the nation's most coal-reliant utilities, Ohio-based American Electric Power--which has come out in fierce opposition to many other Obama EPA rules--says climate-change rules for new plants probably won't hurt the company's bottom line.

"We don't have any plans to build new coal plants. So the rules won't have much of an impact," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for the company. "Any additional generational plants we'd build for the next generation will be natural gas. It will shape sources for new generation. But in the near term, the impact will not be as great. It impacts the ability to expand the use of coal for electricity, but it doesn't cause immediate concern for us." [National Journal, 3/26/12]

Duke Energy: EPA Rule "Means Nothing To Us." Greenbiz.com reported:

Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) has two new coal plants -- not subject to the EPA emissions cap -- slated to come on line at the end of this year, along with two new natural-gas plants. The company plans to spend $7 billion on the four plants, which will result in rate increases for its customers in the coming months. 

Still, Duke, which has utilities that serve North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, says it has no plans for new coal projects beyond the two plants already in the works. Tom Williams, director of external relations for Duke, added that the company will look at natural gas, nuclear energy and upgrades to existing coal plants instead.

"This proposal means nothing to us," he said. "Our carbon profile is going down. We're shutting down 3,800 megawatts of coal and [the new plants] we're bringing on will replace that with lower carbon emissions," Williams said. [Greenbiz.com, 3/27/12]

The Economist: "New Rules Will Only Formalize A Shift That Has Already Been Under Way." From a March 31 article by The Economist:

Lobbyists for the coal industry immediately declared that the Obama administration was "driving up energy prices and destroying jobs". In fact, low gas prices, along with sluggish demand for electricity in the aftermath of the recession, have kept power prices subdued (petrol prices are another matter). For some time now utilities, faced with falling gas prices and the prospect of stricter environmental regulation, have been favouring gas over coal anyway. So the new rules will only formalise a shift that had already been under way, with little immediate economic impact. [The Economist, 3/31/12]

But Conservative Media Still Claim That  Electricity Costs Will "Skyrocket"

OC Register: EPA Rule Will Lead To "Dramatic Increases In Electricity Prices." From an April 2 Orange County Register editorial:

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas necessary for life, not a pollutant. Its emissions have scant, if any, relationship to global temperatures, which have been flat for a dozen years even as CO2 levels dramatically increased.

What the EPA diktat is certain to accomplish, however, is dramatic increases in electricity prices and the devastation of coal-generated power industry, which provides almost half of U.S. electricity for industry and consumers. [OC Register, 4/2/12]

IBD: Carbon Rule Is "Sure To Make Energy A Lot More Expensive." From a March 27 Investor's Business Daily editorial:

The Obama administration is pushing the first rules ever to cut carbon dioxide emissions in new U.S. power plants. It's a move that's sure to make energy a lot more expensive for everyone. [Investor's Business Daily, 3/27/11]

Wall Street Journal: EPA Wants To "Drive Up The Price Of Electricity." From a March 29 column by Pete Du Pont:

Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency wants to increase regulation of coal-fueled electricity plants, which produce almost half of our electricity, so as to drive up the price of electricity and force plants to close. [Wall Street Journal, 3/29/12]

Mike Huckabee: EPA Rule Will "Bankrupt Families." On Fox Business' The Willis Report, Mike Huckabee said of the rule:

HUCKABEE: But I think what the president said, we want to bankrupt them. You know who he's going to bankrupt? He's going to bankrupt families. Moms and dads and two-kid households. He's going to bankrupt single moms. He is going to bankrupt college students. Because when energy is increasingly expensive it is not just the price of heating your home. It's the price of reaching for a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk because it's going to cost more to get it to your house and cost more to take care of your house. That's why I don't think this president understands - he champions himself as the, you know the guy that loves the little guy. He is killing the little guy with these policies. [Fox Business, The Willis Report, 3/30/12, via Nexis]

Fox Guest: Electricity Prices Will "Skyrocket." From the March 28 edition of Varney & Co.:

STUART VARNEY: So bottom line, no future for coal in new power plants and electricity prices go up? 

TOM BORELLI: Necessarily skyrocket. 

VARNEY: Skyrocket?

BORELLI: Double digit. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 3/28/12]

Right-wing media have distorted recent comments by Vice President Joe Biden by falsely claiming that he called for a "global tax." In fact, while advocating for a reduction in the corporate tax rate, Biden was referring to an Obama administration proposal to ensure that American companies pay a "minimum tax on their overseas profits" to combat offshoring -- not any kind of a new international tax.

Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Biden Called For "Global Tax"

Drudge Report: "Biden Calls For 'Global Tax.' " On March 30, Drudge Report linked to a RealClearPolitics video of Biden's comments at a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, with the following headline and image:

[Drudge Report Archives, 3/30/12]

Fox Nation: "Biden Calls For 'Global Tax.' " In a March 30 post, Fox Nation posted video of Biden's comments and linked to the RealClearPolitics post with the same headline:

[Fox Nation, 3/30/12]

Hannity: "You Know, All Those Nuts That Thought One-World Government Is Coming, Maybe They Weren't So Wrong. Biden Calling For A Global Tax." On the March 30 edition of his radio show, Sean Hannity said:

HANNITY: You know, I thought I saw everything. I'm looking at the headline on the Drudge Report about Joe Biden. "We want to create what's called a global minimum tax, because American taxpayers shouldn't be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home."

Wow, global minimum tax. You know, all those nuts that thought one-world government is coming, maybe they weren't so wrong. Biden calling for a global tax. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 3/30/12]

But Biden Was Referring To The U.S. Taxing Corporate Profits Abroad -- Not Creating A New International Tax

Biden: "We Want To End ... The Practice Of Getting A Tax Break" For "Dismantling A Factory, Floor To Ceiling, And Shipping It Abroad." In his remarks in Davenport, Biden said:

For years, American manufacturers have faced one of the highest tax rates in the world. We want to reduce that by over 20 percent. We want to drop the rate particularly for high-tech manufacturers like you, Mr. President, even further than the 20 percent.

We want to create what's called a global minimum tax, because American taxpayers shouldn't be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.

Look, we want to end -- and we want to end it right now -- the practice of getting a tax break, which you saw happen here in Iowa, for dismantling a factory, floor to ceiling, and shipping it abroad and getting a moving expense to go abroad. Instead, we should be giving a tax credit to companies that dismantle factories abroad and bring them back home. [Politico.com, accessed 3/30/12]

The Hill: "Biden Was Likely Just Referring To The International Minimum Tax That The White House Has Suggested Before." The article in The Hill noted:

Biden was likely just referring to the international minimum tax that the White House has suggested before, under which the American government would impose a domestic tax on American companies that were shipping jobs -- or profits -- overseas to avoid paying taxes.

"The President is proposing to eliminate tax incentives to ship jobs offshore by ensuring that all American companies pay a minimum tax on their overseas profits, preventing other countries from attracting American business through unusually low tax rates. The savings would be invested in cutting taxes here at home, especially for manufacturing," the White House said in a January fact sheet on the president's manufacturing proposals. [The Hill, 3/30/12]

White House: Obama Proposed "Making Companies Pay A Minimum Tax For Profits And Jobs Overseas And Investing The Savings In Cutting Taxes Here At Home." A White House fact sheet titled, "President Obama's Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs, Discourage Outsourcing, and Encourage Insourcing," described a proposal for a "minimum tax for profits and jobs overseas" on corporations that outsource. From the fact sheet:

At the same time as the President is calling for immediate enactment of this plan, he is also pushing forward on a framework for corporate tax reform that would encourage even greater investment in the United States, while eliminating tax advantages for outsourcing. This framework will include:

• Making companies pay a minimum tax for profits and jobs overseas and investing the savings in cutting taxes here at home, especially for manufacturing: The President is proposing to eliminate tax incentives to ship jobs offshore by ensuring that all American companies pay a minimum tax on their overseas profits, preventing other countries from attracting American business through unusually low tax rates. The savings would be invested in cutting taxes here at home, especially for manufacturing. [WhiteHouse.gov, accessed 3/30/12, emphasis original]

The right-wing media remains desperate to obscure the fact that the Affordable Care Act lowers the deficit. In the latest iteration of the claim, Eric Bolling teamed up with Fox's "brain room" to inflate the cost of the health care reform law to a whopping $4 trillion.

Affordable Care Act Lowers The Deficit

CBO: Health Care Reform Lowers The Deficit By More Than $100 Billion. In March 2011, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation issued a joint report finding that "[o]n net, CBO and JCT's latest comprehensive estimate is that the effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period." The CBO subsequently determined that the Obama administration's decision to indefinitely suspend implementation of the portion of the Affordable Care Act that enacted the CLASS Act lowered the deficit savings of the Affordable Care Act by $83 billion. [Congressional Budget Office, 3/30/11, 10/31/11]

Nevertheless, Bolling Falsely Claims Affordable Care Act May Cost As Much As "$4 Trillion"

Bolling: Because The IRS Cannot Throw You In Jail For Refusing To Buy Insurance Or Pay The Penalty, The Affordable Care Act May Really Cost $3 Or $4 Trillion. From the March 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

BOLLING: I spent the better part of a full day looking through this, and I found something in the health care law, in the Obamacare law, dealing with -- specifically dealing with enforcement. Brian, if you don't pay your taxes, what happens? The IRS comes after you, right?

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Eventually.

BOLLING: They take you to court, eventually they take you to court, they can even garnish your wages, they can put a lien on your home, a tax lien on your property. Fast forward, the IRS will be the enforcement agent to Obamacare written in the bill. What happens if you don't buy health insurance either on the individual level or your company on a corporate level, you don't buy health insurance?

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): You pay the fine.

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): You pay the penalty.

BOLLING: Well, you get assessed a fine, tax, penalty, whatever it is. What if you say, Steve, go jump in the river, IRS. I'm not paying the penalty either?

KILMEADE: Same thing.

BOLLING: No.

KILMEADE: Really?

BOLLING: Wrong. Nothing. Specifically, if I may --

DOOCY: So this is a mandate with no teeth?

KILMEADE: You're not going to sing another song, are you?

BOLLING: No, I'm going to read this. Waiver of -- this is section 1501, subsection (g)(2)(a), waiver of criminal penalties in the case of any failure by taxpayer to timely pay the penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure and the secretary shall not file a notice of lien with respect to property and respect --

DOOCY: Well, politically though, they couldn't pass a bill where you go to prison.

BOLLING: Here's the -- well, they could give it -- they could give the IRS the same teeth to enforce tax law that they do Obamacare. Here's the point, though. Forget what this means. What it means to the taxpayer, it means, the CBO intially told us it was be $938 billion, the Obamacare. They recently upped it to $1.76 trillion. If this is true and if we're reading it right and I spent a lot of time with lawyers, with the brain room, with the accountants --

CARLSON: How dare you read the bill?

BOLLING: Listen to me. This could be double. This could be a $3 trillion bill, a $4 trillion bill. Because people will specifically say, if I don't have to pay and I'm not -- the extent of the enforcement's harassing phone calls. If that's all I have to deal with, there's going to be a section of population that doesn't pay, and people who do pay are going to pick up the tab for people who don't. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/29/12, emphasis added]

Bolling's Argument Relies On Three Clear Falsehoods

Bolling's Falsehood: "Nothing" Happens To You If You Don't Buy Health Insurance And Then Don't Pay The Penalty. When asked what would happen if you didn't buy insurance and then didn't pay the penalty assessed to people who don't buy insurance, Bolling answered: "Nothing." In fact, the penalty will be assessed against any refund or tax credit that a taxpayer would otherwise receive. From the Joint Committee on Taxation:

Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset refunds or credits is not limited by this provision. [Joint Committee on Taxation, 3/21/10]

Bolling's Falsehood: CBO Has Not Taken Into Account The Effect Of The Enforcement Mechanism For The Individual Mandate. Bolling claimed that, after having "spent a lot of time with lawyers, with the [Fox] brain room, with the accountants," if the effect of people saying "I don't have to pay" were truly taken into account, the CBO estimate of the cost of the bill "could be double. This could be a $3 trillion bill, a $4 trillion bill." Actually, the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation have already taken this into account and have estimated that "collections from those penalties will be about $4 billion per year." From an April 2010 CBO report:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty -- for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 13 million and 14 million of the uninsured in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions.

Of the remaining 7 million to 8 million uninsured, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs. Among the uninsured who do not obtain an exemption, many will voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid making payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty. After accounting for all of those factors, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf).

CBO and JCT estimate that total collections from those penalties will be about $4 billion per year over the 2017-2019 period. [CBO, 4/30/10]

Bolling's Falsehood: The CBO Has Already Increased The Estimate For The Affordable Care Act To $1.7 Trillion. Bolling claimed that "CBO intially told us it was be $938 billion, Obamacare. They recently upped it to $1.76 trillion." In fact, Bolling was referring to just the gross cost of the insurance coverage provision, not the entire bill. In addition, in the report to which Bolling is referring, the CBO estimated that the insurance coverage provisions will cost "just under $1.1 trillion," less than previously estimated. [Media Matters, 3/16/12]

• Even The Conservative National Review Online Acknowledges That The Talking Point That The Affordable Care Act's Cost Has Doubled Is Nonsense. From a post by National Review Online's Patrick Brennan:

The House Republican Policy Committee, for instance, put out a statement claiming that "the new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years -- well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed."

This claim, that the CBO's 2012 estimate suggests Obamacare will cost twice as much as originally projected when the bill was passed in 2010, has been widely trumpeted, by some rather doggedly, as another Obamacare failure, but unfortunately, it's entirely dishonest accounting, as a range of liberal bloggers have pointed out. [National Review Online, 3/20/12]

Right-Wing Media Pretend All The Time That The Affordable Care Act Is A Budget Buster

For Years, Right-Wing Media Outlets Have Pushed The Falsehood That The Affordable Care Act Will Cost The Government A Fortune. Examples of conservative media making false claims about the costs of the Affordable Care Act include:

• Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled. [Media Matters, 3/16/12]
• Wash. Times' Wolf "Lie[s]" To Accuse Obama Of Lying On Health Care. [Media Matters, 7/20/11]
• Doocy Echoes Bachmann's New, False Claim That $105 Billion Was "Hidden" In Health Care Law. [Media Matters, 3/9/11]
• Carlson Allows Former GOP Aide To Falsely Claim HC Reform Does Not Reduce Deficit. [Media Matters, 1/24/11]
• Rove Still Pushing Health Care Deficit Reduction Misinformation. [Media Matters, 1/20/11]
• Red State Advances Bogus Claim That Repeal Of Health Care Reform Will Not Increase Deficit. [Media Matters, 1/6/11]
• Ingraham Accuses CBO Of "Spinning" On Health Care Reform. [Media Matters, 1/6/11]
• WSJ Revives Tired Claim To Suggest Health Reform Increases Deficit. [Media Matters, 1/4/11]
• Fox Promotes Boehner's Falsehood That Health Care Law Will "Bankrupt" The Country. [Media Matters, 9/9/10]
• Fox Falsely Claims CBO Estimated Health Care Reform Would Add To Deficit. [Media Matters, 7/7/10]
• Varney Still Pushing Tired Claim That Health Care Reform Bill "Will Not Lower The Deficit." [Media Matters, 6/30/10]
• Rove Continues To Mislead On CBO's Health Care Estimate. [Media Matters, 6/4/10]
• Goldberg Falsely Suggests Health Care Reform Isn't Paid For. [Media Matters, 4/4/10]
• Kilmeade: "How The Heck" Can Health Care Reform Reduce The Deficit While Also Spending $940B? [Media Matters, 3/26/10]
• Kristol Says GOP "Can Make A Compelling Case" That Health Care Reform "Will Bankrupt The Government." [Media Matters, 3/22/10]
• Cavuto Falsely Claims That Health Care Reform Is "Most Costly" Bill "In A Generation." [Media Matters, 3/20/10]
• Fox Responds To CBO Score Of Health Care Bill By Portraying CBO As Untrustworthy. [Media Matters, 3/19/10]
• Attention Fox News: The CBO Has Not Undermined Its Deficit Reduction Estimate. [Media Matters, 12/23/09]

Last week the New York Post penned an op-ed attacking a proposal by NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-64) that would raise NY's minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 an hour. The editorial repeated debunked myths that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment, increase the cost of products and services, and lower economic activity. Contrary to the Post's assertions, there has been little to no negative correlation between minimum wage and unemployment, and in some cases it's been shown that increasing the minimum wage would actually help create economic activity.

CLAIM: If Minimum Wage Is Increased Businesses Will Leave New York

NYPost: Increasing The Minimum Wage "Will Simply Encourage [Businesses] To Employ Fewer Workers. Or High-Tail It To Some Other State." According to a March 2012 editorial in the New York Post:

Forcing businesses to pay more for salaries will simply encourage them to employ fewer workers. Or high-tail it to some other state (or country).  Or not set up shop here in the first place. [New York Post, 3/19/12]

FACT: Businesses Do Not Cut Employees Due To Minimum Wage Increases

Fiscal Policy Institute: "It Is Hard To Sustain The Argument Made By Some Observers That An Increase In The Minimum Wage Will Result In Adverse Aggregate Employment Outcomes." According to a 2004 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute:

We do not know enough from this analysis to conclude that increasing the minimum wage will boost employment growth over what it otherwise would have been. What does seem to be clear, however, is that it is hard to sustain the argument made by some observers that an increase in the minimum wage will result in adverse aggregate employment outcomes.

The analysis of employment and payroll data in this report -- across all states since the last increase in the federal minimum wage -- suggests that it is hard to argue that, in the aggregate, all businesses, or all small businesses, will be adversely affected by higher minimum wages. [Fiscal Policy Institute, 4/20/04]

Fiscal Policy Institute: "Employment And Payrolls In Small Businesses Grew Faster In The States With Minimum Wages Above The Federal Level." According to a 2006 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute:

Some observers contend that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely  employ low-wage workers, they will experience sharp cost increases when the minimum  wage is increased, leading them to reduce employment levels.  However, this report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workers and found  that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum  wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal  minimum wage prevailed.

This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states.   Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workers at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states. [Fiscal Policy Institute, 3/30/06]

FACT: Businesses Do Not Leave Areas With A Higher Minimum Wage For Areas With A Lower One

Places With Higher Minimum Wage Laws Than Surrounding Areas Did Not Experience Statistically Significant Impacts On "Employment Or Business Closures." According to a 2006 UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations Policy Brief:

During the debates preceding the votes on both cities' laws, businesses threatened to leave if a minimum wage were enacted. In this brief we have reviewed the economic impact studies conducted for San Francisco and Santa Fe, the two cities with citywide minimum wages. These studies, which both use sophisticated statistical techniques, found no significant impact on employment or business closures. [IIR Policy Brief, September 2006]

IIR Policy Brief: Areas With Higher Minimum Wage Policies "Do Not Experience An Exodus Of Major Retail Businesses." According to a UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations Policy Brief:

In Table 3, we have taken the 2006 listing of the top 100 retailers (ranked by annual revenue) and indicated the businesses and number of stores that each retailer currently operates in San Francisco and Santa Fe.

Each city has a healthy representation of the nation's largest retailers, many with multiple stores and all paying the city's minimum wage. Indeed, Sam's Club in Santa Fe voluntarily started paying the higher minimum wage even before the law went into effect, and Wal-Mart is now building a new SuperCenter in the city.  In San Francisco, Home Depot recently agreed to open its first store in the city and to pay an even higher wage of $10.77.

In Table 4, we compare the presence of the nation's top retailers in San Francisco  before and after the city-wide minimum wage went into effect. As the table indicates, the number of different businesses and the number of stores in the city increased after the minimum wage policy was implemented. After combining the 2003 and 2006 top 100 lists, we found that 68 retailers maintained a market presence in the Greater SF Bay Area market in 2003 and/or 2006. Among these 68 retailers, 47 had stores in San Francisco in 2003, increasing to 52 retailers in 2006, while the number of stores operated by these retailers increased from 207 to 241.

Taken together, the results in these two tables indicate that cities with minimum wage policies do not experience an exodus of major retail businesses. [IIR Policy Brief, September 2006, emphasis added]

States That Border New York Are Also Seeking To Increase Their Minimum Wage. According to a CBS News article:

Legislative leaders from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are pushing a novel, unified approach to promote higher minimum wages, hoping to spur a national movement and eliminate a major argument of opponents in the Northeast who say hikes hinder a state's competitiveness.

The Democrats want to increase the minimum from $7.25 an hour to about $8.50 in New York and New Jersey, and to about $9.75 over two years in Connecticut, where it's $8.25. There are several active proposals in the states. [Associated Press, 3/7/12]

CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increase Would Cause Unemployment, Less Economic Activity

NYPost: Increased Minimum Wage Will "Translate To Higher Unemployment -- And Lower Economic Activity." According to a March 2012 editorial in the New York Post:

Indeed, experts agree that mandatory wage hikes translate to higher unemployment -- and lower economic activity. [New York Post, 3/19/12]

FACT: Overall Employment Increased When New York Increased Its Minimum Wage In 2004

Total State Employment Increased 3 Percent In The Three Years Following The 2004 Wage Increase. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute:

FPI also has analyzed employment growth in New York State. From December 2004, the month preceding the first New York State minimum wage increase, to December 2007, total employment in the state has grown by 3.0 percent. In the retail trade and food services industries--the largest employers of minimum-wage workers--employment has risen by 3.3 percent. While these figures are smaller than the averages for the entire U.S. (4.4 percent and 4.8percent, respectively), the ratios of change of low-wage industry employment to overall employment are comparable (1.10 for New York State and 1.09 for the U.S.). In other words, the number of jobs in these heavily low-wage industries rose just as quickly in New York State relative to overall job growth as it did at the national level. These results do not support the prediction that the increases of the state's minimum wage between 2004 and 2007 would stymie growth in New York's low-wage industries. [Fiscal Policy Institute, 7/10/08]

FACT: Higher Minimum Wages Do Not Translate To Higher Unemployment

Contiguous Counties In Different States With Different Minimum Wages Show "No Employment Effects Of Minimum Wage Increases." According to a study by Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich published in the November 2010 The Review of Economics and Statistics:

In this paper, we use a local identification strategy that takes advantage of all minimum wage differences between pairs of contiguous counties. Our approach addresses the twin concerns that heterogeneous spatial trends can bias the estimated minimum wage effects in traditional approaches using time and place fixed effects, and that not accounting for spatial autocorrelation overstates the precision in individual case studies.

For cross-state contiguous counties, we find strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases. By generalizing the local case studies, we show that the differences in the estimated elasticities in the two sets of studies result from insufficient controls for unobserved heterogeneity in employment growth in the national level studies using a traditional fixed-effects specification. The differences do not arise from other possible factors, such as using short before-after windows in local case studies.  [The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010, emphasis added]

Despite Calls That Increasing The Minimum Wage In California Would Be A Job Killer, "1.1 Million Jobs Were Created In The Five Years" After The Increase. According to an op-ed by Donald Cohen, Director of the Cry Wolf Project:

The California Chamber has opposed every proposed increase in the state's minimum wage in recent memory, describing it as the ultimate "job killer."  In 1996, voters adopted Proposition 210 to raise the state minimum wage in two steps from $4.75 to $5.75 in 1998.  California's minimum wage had been stuck at $4.25 since 1988 until the October 1996 Federal Minimum increase to $4.75. per hour. The Chamber claimed that year's proposed increase was a "job killer" that would disrupt small business and damage the state's economy.   But contrary to the predictions of doom, 1.1 million jobs were created in California in the five years after Proposition 210 passed. [Cry Wolf Project, 5/19/11]

FACT: Economic Activity Has Increased Following A Minimum Wage Increase

Federal Reserve Bank Of Chicago: "A $1 Minimum Wage Hike Increases Total Spending By Approximately $700 Per Quarter In The Near-Term." According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:

First, a $1 minimum wage hike increases total spending by approximately $700 per quarter in the near-term. This exceeds the roughly $250 per quarter increase in family income following a minimum wage hike of similar size. These patterns are corroborated by independent data showing that debt rises substantially after a minimum wage increase. Second, the majority of this additional spending goes toward durable goods, in particular vehicles. Consequently, the spending response is concentrated among a small number of households. Third, total spending increases within one quarter of a minimum wage increase and not prior, despite legislation typically passing 6 to 18 months before enactment. Finally, high levels of durables spending and debt accumulation persist for several quarters after a minimum wage hike. [Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 2/8/11]

"Indicators Of Economic Performance Were Consistently Better" In Higher Minimum Wage States For Small Business Job Growth. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute:

In examining state-level small business job growth, the best government data available permits a comparison of 1998 and 2003; the latter is the most recent year for which the data are available.  For the 10 states and the District of Columbia that had set their minimum wages above the federal level for most of this period, indicators of economic performance were consistently better than for the other 40 states where the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour prevailed.  [Fiscal Policy Institute, 3/30/06]

NYTimes: Small Business Owners In A State With Higher Minimum Wage "Have Prospered Far Beyond Their Expectations." According to the New York Times:

Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Nearly a decade ago, when voters in Washington approved a measure that would give the state's lowest-paid workers a raise nearly every year, many business leaders predicted that small towns on this side of the state line would suffer.

But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in Washington say they have prospered far beyond their expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at the dividing line between two economies -- a real-life laboratory for the debate -- have found that raising prices to compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to losses in jobs and profits.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

Business owners say they have had to increase prices somewhat to keep up. But both states are among the nation's leaders in the growth of jobs and personal income, suggesting that an increase in the minimum wage has not hurt the overall economy.

"We're paying the highest wage we've ever had to pay, and our business is still up more than 11 percent over last year," said Tom Singleton, who manages a Papa Murphy's takeout pizza store here, with 13 employees. [New York Times, 1/11/07]

CLAIM: Youth Unemployment Increases When Minimum Wage Is Increased

NYPost: "20 Percent Of Jobs ... Held By 16- To 29- Year-Olds Who Lack A High-School Diploma" Were Lost When New York Last Increased Its Minimum Wage. According to a March 2012 editorial in the New York Post:

A study just this year found that New York lost a full 20 percent of jobs -- one in five -- held by 16- to 29-year-olds who lack a high-school diploma when it last bumped up its wage floor in 2004. [New York Post, 3/19/12]

FACT: The Minimum Wage Has Little To No Effect On Youth Unemployment

Study: "Put Simply, Our Findings Indicate That Minimum Wage Increases [...] Do Not Reduce Employment Among Teens." According to a study by Sylvia A. Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube, and Michael Reich published in UC Berkeley's April 2011 edition of Industrial Relations:

Our analysis finds that heterogeneity in employment patterns and selectivity among states constitute significant concerns for conventional minimum wage studies. Although adding division and state trend controls does not constitute a panacea, they provide important controls that mitigate the bias from unobserved heterogeneities that may be correlated with minimum wage changes. Since estimates in previous national-level studies insufficiently address this issue, they do not provide a credible guide for public policy. Interpretations of the quality and nature of the evidence in the existing minimum wage literature, such as those in Neumark and Wascher (2007b, 2008), must be revised substantially. Put simply, our findings indicate that minimum wage increases -- in the range that have been implemented in the United States -- do not reduce employment among teens. [Industrial Relations, April 2011, emphasis added]

EPI: "The Warnings Of Massive Teen Job Loss Due To Minimum Wage Increases Simply Do Not Comport With The Evidence." In a November 25, 2009 post, the Economic Policy Institute found:

First, the labor market is in a severe downturn that is affecting essentially all groups. Since the recession started in December 2007, the overall employment rate has fallen from 62.7% to 58.5%, including a decline of 0.9 percentage points since July alone. Figure A shows the overall employment rate, along with the teen employment rate. Both the overall rate and the teen rate have experienced steep declines during the current downturn. The teen rate, however, has fallen farther, as the plot shows is always the case in recessions (recessions are shaded). Teen workers occupy the "last hired, first fired" rung on the job ladder, and their employment is hit much harder during downturns than that of older workers.

Figure B illustrates this further -- it shows teen employment as a percent of total employment over time. Because teens are hit harder by downturns than older workers, their share of total employment drops during recessions (and, for the recessions of 1990 and 2001, during the period of joblessness that followed them). A quick examination of the plot reveals that far from being an aberration, the decline in the teen share of employment over the last two years is right in line with what would be expected given the length and severity of the current downturn in the labor market. 

Instead, Figure B illustrates how teen employment is driven far more by larger labor market employment trends than by any effects of minimum wage changes. The black lines in Figure B mark times when Congress increased the minimum wage to keep up with inflation.  The two-step increase in 1990 and 1991 occurred during a period of deterioration in the labor market, and the teen employment share dropped.  The two-step increase in 1996 and 1997 occurred during a strong labor market, and the teen employment share increased. The three-step increase in 2007, 2008, and 2009 occurred during a weak labor market, and the teen employment share fell.

This observation is consistent with what careful empirical studies have found. While it is true that there is some disagreement among economists about whether increasing the minimum wage increases or decreases employment, there is a consensus on the essential point: the impact of a minimum wage raise on jobs, whether positive or negative, is small. The warnings of massive teen job loss due to minimum wage increases simply do not comport with the evidence. [EPI.org, 11/25/09]

University Of California Study: Minimum Wage Has Nothing "But Very Small Disemployment Effects" On Teen Employment. A June 2010 report by University of California-Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) stated:

Traditional estimates that often find minimum wage disemployment effects include controls for state unemployment rates and state- and year-fixed effects. Using CPS data on teens for the period 1990-2009, we show that such estimates fail to account for heterogeneous employment patterns that are correlated with selectivity among states with minimum wages. As a result, the estimates are often biased and not robust to the source of identifying variation. Including controls for long-term growth differences among states and for heterogeneous economic shocks renders the employment and hours elasticities indistinguishable from zero and rules out any but very small disemployment effects. Dynamic evidence further shows the nature of bias in traditional estimates, and it also rules out all but very small negative long-run effects.

[...]

Some observers maintained that teen unemployment would increase because of the timing of these minimum wage increases. Teen unemployment rates did indeed increase throughout 2008 and 2009. The teen unemployment rate was 16.9 percent at the start of the recession in December 2007 and increased to 20.8 percent in July 2008 and again to 24.5 percent in July 2009. Were these increases in teen unemployment a result of minimum wage increases during an especially severe economic downturn, or simply the result of harsh economic conditions?

More generally, are the disemployment effects of minimum wage for teens more pronounced (or at least present) when the labor market is slack? To the extent the measured employment effects are small for monopsonistic reasons, some firms are labor supply-constrained as opposed to labor-demand constrained. But this is less likely to be the case when the unemployment rate is high and job vacancy is low. There may be other possibilities as well, including a greater consumer demand effect from an increase in minimum wages during a recession.

[...]

Overall, the results do not indicate heterogeneous impacts of minimum wages depending on the overall rate of unemployment. Within the range of variation the minimum wage and overall unemployment rates in our sample, the effects do not seem to vary across phases of the business cycle or across labor markets with differing labor market tightness. [IRLE, 6/21/10]

National Employment Law Project: Most Minimum Wage Earners Are Adults, Not Teenagers. In a December 26, 2010, Register-Guard op-ed, the National Employment Law Project's (NELP) Anne Thompson wrote: "Even the claim that the minimum wage only affects teenagers looking for pocket change does not hold up. Most minimum wage earners are adults, many of whom support families on this income. Nationwide, three-quarters of minimum wage earners are 20 or older." [Register-Guard, 12/26/10]

Fox News reporter Shannon Bream said that during Supreme Court deliberations on the health care reform law, "some of the different justices talked about the Cornhusker Kickback and other things that were tucked into the law so that votes would be gotten along the way." In fact, the provision in question, which would have provided extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska, was removed and is not part of the health care reform law.

Bream: "Cornhusker Kickback" Was "Tucked Into The Law" To Secure Votes

Bream: "Some Of The Justices Talked About The Cornhusker Kickback And Other Things That Were Tucked Into The Law." From Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): Fox News' Shannon Bream was inside the Supreme Court hearing today. She joins us. And Shannon, I probably should hold up at least the 2,700 pages of the bill that apparently nobody's read. Nobody read it before it was voted on, and now nobody's read it before the decision is going to be made about whether it's constitutional. But anyway, what happened today?

BREAM: It's quite a workout there. By the way, Justice Breyer did have sections of the law with him today, and he acknowledged in open court, Hey, I haven't read this whole thing. But he talked about the fact that if you shoot down the mandate, how do you decide what parts of the law live? And he talked about the fact that there are coequal branches of government. Do I jump in and do Congress' job, telling them which pieces I'm going to going to keep and not keep? And there was discussion in the court as well that there were deals made for some of the votes, he said -- you know, some of the different justices talked about the Cornhusker Kickback and other things that were tucked into the law so that votes would be gotten along the way. And they -- several of them expressed concern: How do we undo all of that? Is that our job? [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 3/28/12]

Medicaid Provision For Nebraska Was Not Part Of Final Law

AP: "Cornhusker Kickback Gets The Boot In Health Bill." From a March 2010 Associated Press article headlined "Cornhusker Kickback gets the boot in health bill":

Bye bye, Cornhusker Kickback. Hello, special treatment for Tennessee and North Dakota.

Democrats unveiling revisions Thursday to their health care overhaul bill decided to kill the extra $100 million in Medicaid funds for Nebraska that has become a symbol of backdoor deal making.

But the 153 pages of changes to the massive health care package include extra money for hospitals in Tennessee that serve large numbers of low-income patients. And though the bill would revamp the nation's student loan system to make the government the only lender, one bank -- the state-owned Bank of North Dakota -- would be allowed to continue making student loans.

That provision ended up rubbing Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the wrong way. Fearing it would become a target by Republicans in what he said is "an overly heated partisan environment," he asked the House late Thursday to remove it from the legislation. [Associated Press, 3/18/10]

CNN: Obama Signed "Fixes" Bill That Eliminated NE Medicaid Provision. From a March 2010 CNN.com article headlined "Obama signs health care 'fixes' bill":

Congress initially appeared poised to pass a compromise reform bill in January or February, shortly after both the House and Senate approved their own versions of the measure. However, the political landscape shifted in January when Republican Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Ted Kennedy, the longtime champion of health care reform, who died last year.

Brown's victory cost Senate Democrats the 60-seat majority they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster against a compromise health care bill. In response, Democrats devised a two-bill process in which the House passed the Senate version unchanged, making it law when signed last week by Obama, and also passed the accompanying "fixes" bill to change provisions in the Senate legislation that some House members opposed.

The "fixes" bill was then proposed under reconciliation rules in the Senate that apply to bills involving the budget. Such bills need only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass.

Specific provisions in the "fixes" bill include:

[...]

• Eliminating the "Cornhusker Kickback," which gave Nebraska a special exemption from all new Medicaid expenses. The federal government will instead assist every state by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage between 2014 and 2016, and 90 percent starting in 2020. [CNN.com, 3/31/10]

Lincoln Journal Star: NE Sen. Nelson "Asked Reid To Remove The Permanent Medicaid Exemption From The Legislation." From a December Lincoln Journal Star article:

With Nelson as a key holdout vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a deal with him to allegedly secure his vote, giving the Democrats the 60 votes needed to kill a Republican filibuster.

The deal included language giving Nebraska 100 percent federal funding of the Medicaid expansion indefinitely. It also included language allowing states to restrict funding for abortions under certain circumstances.

But the deal drew so much fire from critics -- who said it amounted to Nelson selling his vote -- that he asked Reid to remove the permanent Medicaid exemption from the legislation.

"To remove any attempts at continued distortion or miscommunication on this point ... I ask that the Nebraska Medicaid exemption be removed and that all states receive equal treatment under the Medicaid expansion," Nelson said in a letter to Reid. [Lincoln Journal Star, 12/27/11]

Right-wing media have attacked President Obama for his recent comments about shooting victim Trayvon Martin and his family, accusing Obama of "inject[ing]" himself into the debate using "racial code" and claiming that his statement is evidence that "he's got it in for this country."

Obama Expressed Sympathy For Trayvon Martin And His Family

Obama: "If I Had A Son, He'd Look Like Trayvon." In a March 23 appearance to announce Dr. Jim Kim as president of the World Bank, President Obama was asked by a reporter to "comment on the Trayvon Martin case." Obama responded by calling the incident a "tragedy" and saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." From the White House:

Q: Mr. President, may I ask you about this current case in Florida, very controversial, allegations of lingering racism within our society -- the so-called do not -- I'm sorry -- Stand Your Ground law and the justice in that?  Can you comment on the Trayvon Martin case, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigation that's taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy.  I can only imagine what these parents are going through.  And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.  And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taking place.  I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.  And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin.  If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.  And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. [White House, 3/23/12]

Right-Wing Media Claim Obama Used "Racial Code" To "Pour Gas On The Fire"

J. Christian Adams: Obama "Injected Himself Into" Martin Case "Using Racial Code." On the March 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Justice Department employee and right-wing activist J. Christian Adams claimed Obama "injected himself" into the case using "racial code." From Fox & Friends:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Besides Eric Holder, is there a fear of inflaming race relations if you crack down on people who want to inflame race relations like the Black Panther Party. 

ADAMS: Well, there's a fear among some, but there's no fear among people like Al Sharpton. He doesn't care about inflaming race --

KILMEADE: He was there in a matter -- in hours. 

ADAMS: That's right. And even the president has inserted himself in a racial way saying that Trayvon looks like he might be his --

KILMEADE: You think wrongly?

ADAMS: Absolutely wrongly. No president in our country's history would have injected himself into a criminal matter using racial code like Barack Obama did. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/28/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Ablow Offers "Diagnosis" Of Obama's Comments: "He's Got It In For This Country." On the March 27 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow reacted to Obama's comments by claiming, "It's irresistible to this president to enter the fray when there seems to be an opportunity for a kind of furious splitting," and said that his "diagnosis" of the president is, "He's got it in for this country." From Lou Dobbs Tonight:

ABLOW: It is outrageous to me. It's beneath the office to be reaching into one case as opposed to many others. There are tragedies, believe me, I am a forensic psychiatrist. There are enough tragedies to go around that if the president wanted to comment on all of them, that would be his whole job. It's irresistible to this president to enter the fray when there seems to be an opportunity for a kind of furious splitting. How can I make a comment that aligns with those I feel are oppressed, and marginalizes those I feel have been oppressive? And that is a call to the president he can't seem to resist.

[...]

ABLOW: It's time, probably -- it's been overdue that we believe the data. Like as a psychiatrist, there is a certain point when you get a diagnosis. You say, "OK, look, absent something that refutes this, this is the diagnosis." A president who hangs around with Reverend Wright, whose wife said she was never proud of this country, has an edge. He's got it in for this country. At moments when there is an opportunity to fracture the unity, he does. [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/27/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Dobbs: The Trayvon Martin "Controversy" Was "In Part Created By The President Himself." Earlier on the March 27 Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs claimed:

DOBBS: As we reported here yesterday, it's highly unusual for the president to comment on shootings publicly, even the hundreds of shooting deaths that have taken place in his hometown of Chicago each year since he took office. They've gone without presidential comment. So why would his campaign suddenly advertise hooded sweatshirts in the middle of a national controversy in part created by the president himself? [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/27/12, via Media Matters] 

Malkin: "Barack Obama Is All Too Willing To Pour Gas On The Fire" Of The Martin Story. In a March 23 post on her blog, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin wrote:

This week, progressives and lib media activists elevated a tragic Florida shooting involving a 17-year-old boy into the cause celebre of the week. Over at my new startup, Twitchy, our editorial team has covered all aspects of the story. But for the past several days, zealous libs on Twitter have demanded that I "say something." Why? Because they've turned the horrible death of Trayvon Martin into a racial litmus test.

And now, Barack Obama is all too willing to pour gas on the fire.

[...]

What do Trayvon's race and looks have to do with anything? The political opportunism undercuts the very "seriousness" Obama purports to display. [MichelleMalkin.com, 3/23/12]

Daily Caller Suggests Obama "Jumped Into The Fight" Due In Part To "Demands By The New Black Panthers." In a March 23 post, Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle suggested Obama "jumped into the fight" following "demands by the New Black Panthers and others on scene in Sanford, Fla." From The Daily Caller:

Obama and the White House had previously refrained from commenting on the case. Following demands by the New Black Panthers and others on scene in Sanford, Fla. that the White House get involved, Obama jumped into the fight. When first asked about the case, White House spokesman Jay Carney essentially declined comment, offering a boilerplate statement of condolence to Martin's family. [The Daily Caller, 3/23/12]

Hoft Reacts To Obama's Statement By Claiming Obama Thinks, "It's All About Me!" In a March 23 post on Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft wrote: "It's all about me! Barack Obama says, 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.' Funny how everything always revolves around planet Obama, huh?" [Gateway Pundit, 3/23/12, emphasis in original]

Over the past two years the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has benefited millions of Americans nationwide. Despite the successes of the law, South Carolina's The Post and Courier has attacked the ACA more than 27 times in its editorials over the past 2 years -- often regurgitating false conservative talking points. Contrary to the misrepresentations of the editorial board, South Carolinians have seen many direct benefits from the law already and will continue to do so. A few of the Post and Courier's myths are highlighted below.

CLAIM: Waivers Were Granted Because Health Care Reform Was Too Expensive And Would Kill Jobs

The Administration Has Granted Waivers Because "Unions And Other Organizations ... Simply Can't Afford To Comply" With The Health Care Law. According to a March 2012 editorial in the Post and Courier:

The administration also has granted more than 1,700 waivers to businesses, unions and other organizations on the practical grounds that they simply can't afford to comply with the so-called Affordable Care Act. [Post And Courier, 3/19/10]

Over The Past 2 Years The Affordable Care Act Has Helped Thousands Of South Carolinians

HHS: "As Of June 2011, 30,376 Young Adults In South Carolina Gained Insurance Coverage As A Result Of The New Health Care Law." According to a Health and Human Services fact sheet:

Health plans are now required to allow parents to keep their children under age 26 without job-based coverage on their family's coverage, and, thanks to this provision, 2.5 million young people have gained coverage nationwide. As of June 2011, 30,376 young adults in South Carolina gained insurance coverage as a result of the new health care law. [Healthcare.gov, 3/15/12]

The Discount Received By Seniors Who Hit The "Donut Hole" Resulted In "A Total Savings Of $32,646,527" In South Carolina Alone Or "An Average Savings Of $615 Per Person." According to a Health and Human Services fact sheet:

Thanks to the new health care law, 54,683 people with Medicare in South Carolina received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the donut hole in 2010. In 2011, 53,081 people with Medicare received a 50 percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the donut hole. This discount resulted in an average savings of $615 per person, and a total savings of $32,646,527 in South Carolina. By 2020, the law will close the donut hole. [Healthcare.gov, 3/15/12]

755,000 South Carolinians "With Private Health Insurance Gained Preventive Service Coverage With No Cost-Sharing." According to a Health and Human Services fact sheet:

In 2011, 602,760 people with Medicare in South Carolina received free preventive services - such as mammograms and colonoscopies - or a free annual wellness visit with their doctor. And 54 million Americans with private health insurance gained preventive service coverage with no cost-sharing, including 755,000 in South Carolina. [Healthcare.gov, 3/15/12]

Families USA: "On Average, Each Household In South Carolina Will Be $1,475 Better Off In 2019 Due To The Provisions Of The Affordable Care Act." According to a study of the effects of the Affordable Care Act by Families USA:

• On average, each household in South Carolina will be $1,475 better off in 2019 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 

• Households with income of less than $100,000 will receive the greatest financial Benefit.
  • Households with income under $30,000 will be $2,800 better off.
  • Households with income between $30,000 and $50,000 will be $1,596 better off.

Households with income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be $878 better off. [FamiliesUSA.org, Oct. 2011]

Right-wing media criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for declining to deport six undocumented students who were arrested while participating in a non-violent protest against the immigration policies of controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. However, ICE has limited resources and determined that the students did not fall under its enforcement priorities, which focus on "national security, public safety, and border security."

Immigrants Conduct Non-Violent Protest Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Controversial Immigration Policies

Six Non-Violent Student Protesters Arrested While Protesting Arpaio's Controversial Immigration Policies. From The Arizona Republic:

Six of the nearly 150 young people were taken into custody Tuesday after taking to the streets in front of Trevor Browne High School in Phoenix to protest the immigration policies of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The protesters, consisting of students from Trevor Browne, other area high schools and colleges, rallied in the intersection of 75th Avenue and Cheery Lynn Street, forcing the closure of 75th Avenue in both directions.

[...]

Four women, including two under age 18, and two men were arrested and are expected to be charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing a thoroughfare, according to Phoenix police.

[...]

[Phoenix police spokesman Officer James Holmes] added that the demonstrators were never physically aggressive and the outcome "appeared to be a success" for both protesters and police. [The Arizona Republic, 3/20/12]

DOJ: Arpaio's Office Had "A Pervasive Culture Of Discriminatory Bias Against Latinos." A federal Department of Justice investigation initiated during the Bush administration alleged that Arpaio's office had "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" and that Arpaio himself helped foster this "culture of bias." [The New York Times, 12/15/11]

Right-Wing Media Attack ICE For Not Deporting The Non-Violent Immigrants Who Protested Against Arpaio

Fox Nation: "Illegals Arrested At Arpaio Protest ... ICE Lets Them Stay In USA." Fox Nation linked to an Associated Press article on the protesters with the headline "Illegals Arrested at Arpaio Protest ... ICE Lets Them Stay in USA."

[Fox Nation, 3/22/12]

The Blaze: "Feds Refuse To Deport 6 Illegals Protesting AZ Immigration Policies." Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze, added their own suggestive title to the Associated Press story about six undocumented immigrants being arrested and then released during a protest in Arizona against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration policies. [The Blaze, 3/22/12]

Michelle Malkin's Twitchy On ICE Decision: " 'Enforcement Priorities' Trump Law. That's The Obama Way." A post on conservative pundit Michelle Malkin's new website, Twitchy.com, stated:

In Phoenix, from Fox:

Federal authorities say they won't deport six illegal immigrants arrested during a Phoenix protest over Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's (ar-PY'-ohs) immigration policies.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Wednesday that they determined that the protesters did not fall under "ICE's enforcement priorities."

Nearly 150 people were at Tuesday's rally, which blocked a street in front of a high school.

'Enforcement priorities' trump law. That's the Obama Way.

In Mexico, things are a little different. American students wandering through groups of political demonstrators have had their passports revoked and have been sent back to the US. At the same time, our government agencies actually encourage agencies of the Mexican government and Mexican NGOs to file lawsuits and amicus briefs arguing against US laws and policies. [Twitchy.com, 3/22/12] 

ICE's Focus Is On "Removal Of Criminal Aliens"

ICE Seeks To Prioritize Deportations That Promote "National Security, Public Safety, And Border Security." In a March 2 memo, ICE director John Morton explained that in allocating limited resources, ICE would prioritize the detention and removal of undocumented immigrants "who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety," undocumented immigrants who have recently entered the United States illegally, and undocumented immigrants "who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls." The memo states:

ICE, however, only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States. In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

[...]

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of other aliens unlawfully in the United States. ICE special agents, officers, and attorneys may pursue the removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States, although attention to these aliens should not displace or disrupt the resources needed to remove aliens who are a higher priority. Resources should be committed primarily to advancing the priorities set forth above in order to best protect national security and public safety and to secure the border. [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 3/2/11]

ICE Determined Protesters Should Not Be Held For Deportation, Because They Aren't "Criminal Aliens, Recent Border Crossers [Or] Egregious Immigration Law Violators." ICE officials released a statement saying they will not deport the undocumented protesters who were arrested in Arizona, and will instead focus on "smart, effective immigration enforcement."  The Arizona Republic reported:  

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials released a statement Wednesday afternoon they will not deport six undocumented people arrested Tuesday after protesting in front of Trevor Browne High School.

"Upon further review, ICE has determined that these individuals do not fall under ICE's enforcement priorities and the agency has lifted the previously lodged detainers," the statement said.

The statement went on to say that "ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, such as those who have been previously removed from the United States." [The Arizona Republic, 3/21/12]

Removal Statistics Show ICE Is Using Almost All Its Resources To Deport Criminals And Other Targeted Individuals

ICE Director: ICE "Only Has Resources To Remove Approximately 400,000" Undocumented Immigrants Per Year. ICE director John Morton emphasized the organizations lack of resources explaining that ICE "only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States."  [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 3/2/11]

ICE Statistics Show That Ninety Percent Of The Nearly 400,000 Immigrants Removed In 2011 Fell Into One Of ICE's Enforcement Priorities. Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security show that more than 90 percent of the 396,906 individuals ICE removed in fiscal year 2011 fell into one of ICE's enforcement priorities:

[U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed 3/23/12]

Furthermore, The Most Recent ICE Statistics Show ICE Total Removals Steadily Increased From FY 2007 to FY 2011. [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accessed 3/23/12]

In a Washington Post column, Richard Cohen justified a potential Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities by claiming that it would delay Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons, as evidenced by Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor. But experts say that the Osirak reactor strike did not delay -- and might even have accelerated -- Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Citing Precedent Of Strike On Iraq, Cohen Claims A Strike On Iran's Nuclear Program Would Let Israel "Play For Time" 

Cohen: Israel "Has A Short-Term Objective" In Regards To Iran's Nuclear Program -- "And That Is To Play For Time." From Cohen's March 19 column, headlined "Playing for time through a strike on Iran":

Nations have doctrines. The Soviet Union had the Brezhnev Doctrine and the United States had the Monroe Doctrine, among others. Even little Israel has one. I call it the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine, and it is based on a folk tale of the rabbi who makes a preposterous deal with a tyrant: If the tyrant spares the lives of local Jews, the rabbi will teach the tyrant's dog to talk. When the rabbi tells his wife what he has done, she calls him a fool. But, he says, "A year is a long time. In a year, the tyrant could die or I could die" -- and here he gives her a sly, wise-rabbi smile -- "or maybe the dog will talk."

All sorts of people -- defense intellectuals, military officers and even the president of the United States -- either have not heard of the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine or do not recognize its importance. (It was cited to me by an Israeli official.) Both Barack Obama and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have characterized any Israeli attempt to disrupt Iran's nuclear program as a short-term affair. An Israeli raid "wouldn't achieve their long-term objectives," Dempsey said on CNN -- and he is surely right.

But Israel also has a short-term objective -- and that is to play for time. Israel notes that its 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq set back Saddam Hussein's program -- and did not result in some sort of massive retaliation. Something similar happened with the 2007 bombing of a Syrian installation. Neither operation was conceived as a long-term solution, but both accomplished short-term goals. In a year or two, much could change in the Middle East. The region's in turmoil. Dogs are talking all over the place. [The Washington Post, 3/19/12] 

Experts Actually Say That Strike On Iraq Nuclear Reactor Did Not Delay Iraq's Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons 

Former Pentagon Official: "The Attack On Osirak Actually Increased Hussein's Determination To Develop A Nuclear Deterrent And Provided Iraq's Scientists An Opportunity To Better Organize The Program." In a March 2 Washington Post opinion piece, Colin Kahl, an associate professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, wrote: 

For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraq's program, argues powerfully against an Israeli strike on Iran today.

[...]

By demonstrating Iraq's vulnerability, the attack on Osirak actually increased Hussein's determination to develop a nuclear deterrent and provided Iraq's scientists an opportunity to better organize the program. The Iraqi leader devoted significantly more resources toward pursuing nuclear weapons after the Israeli assault. As Reiter notes, "the Iraqi nuclear program increased from a program of 400 scientists and $400 million to one of 7,000 scientists and $10 billion." [The Washington Post, 3/2/12] 

International Security Policy Professor: "There Is No Evidence That Israel's Destruction Of Osirak Delayed Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program. The Attack May Actually Have Accelerated It." In a spring 2006 National Interest article, Richard Betts, a professor of International Security Policy at Columbia University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, asserted that "there is no evidence that Israel's destruction of Osirak delayed Iraq's nuclear weapons program." From the article: 

Contrary to prevalent mythology, there is no evidence that Israel's destruction of Osirak delayed Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The attack may actually have accelerated it.

Osirak is not applicable to Iran anyway, since an air strike on a single reactor is not a model for the comprehensive campaign that would be required to deal, even unsatisfactorily, with the extensive, concealed and protected program that Iran is probably developing. As the United States crafts non-proliferation policy, it should soberly consider the actual effect of the Osirak attack and the limitations of even stronger air action.

In contrast to a ground war, air power has the allure of quick, clean, decisive action without messy entanglement. Smash today, gone tomorrow. Iraq's nuclear program demonstrates how unsuccessful air strikes can be even when undertaken on a massive scale. Recall the surprising discoveries after the Iraq War. In 1991 coalition air forces destroyed the known nuclear installations in Iraq, but when UN inspectors went into the country after the war, they unearthed a huge infrastructure for nuclear weapons development that had been completely unknown to Western intelligence before the war.

Obliterating the Osirak reactor did not put the brakes on Saddam's nuclear weapons program because the reactor that was destroyed could not have produced a bomb on its own and was not even necessary for producing a bomb. Nine years after Israel's attack on Osirak, Iraq was very close to producing a nuclear weapon. Had Saddam been smart enough in 1990 to wait a year longer, he might have been able to have a nuclear weapon in his holster when he invaded Kuwait.

[...]

If anything, the destruction of the reactor probably increased Saddam's incentive to rush the program via the second route. It is unlikely that Saddam would have been able to develop nuclear weapons much faster through the Osirak reactor--given that he would have had to plan, construct and operate a reprocessing plant--than through enrichment. Israel's preventive strike was not an example of effective delay. [The National Interest, Spring 2006, via Findarticles.com] 

Expert On Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Claim That Osirak Strike "Delayed Iraq's Efforts To Acquire Nuclear Weapons" Is Based On False Assumptions. In a May 2010 Huffington Post column, Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard University Kennedy School, and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, argued that the strike on the Osirak reactor resulted in a concerted and clandestine effort by Iraq to create nuclear weapons. From the article: 

Advocates of a military strike believe that the Israeli destruction of the Osiraq reactor complex in June 1981 delayed Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. This belief rests on two assumptions: that Iraq was pursuing a weapons option in a determined manner before the attack and that the destroyed reactor was intended to serve as a key component of these efforts. Both assumptions are false.

In the mid-1970s Iraq began to develop a nuclear weapons option as part of a wider expansion of their nuclear power program. Iraqi sources demonstrate that there was no dedicated organization, staff or funding for the purposes of acquiring nuclear weapons prior to June 1981. In other words, Iraq had not begun to act on Saddam's nuclear weapons ambition in a serious or determined manner.

The Israeli attack triggered Iraq's determined pursuit of nuclear weapons. In September 1981, three months after the strike, Iraq established a well-funded clandestine nuclear weapons program. This had a separate organization, staff, ample funding and a clear mandate from Saddam Hussein. As the nuclear weapons program went underground the international community lost sight of these activities and had no influence on the Iraqi nuclear calculus. [The Huffington Post, 5/11/10]  

National Security Policy Expert: "The Osiraq Attack May Have Actually Stimulated Rather Than Inhibited The Iraqi Nuclear Program." In a July 2005 article in The Nonproliferation Review,  Dan Reiter, now the chair of the Emory University Department of Political Science and a specialist in international conflict and national security policy wrote:

It may be that even a marginal delay in the Iraqi nuclear program might have been politically significant, given some reports that at the time the Gulf War broke out, Iraq was as little as one year away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, though the October 2004 Duelfer report notes several remaining obstacles to Iraqi weaponization in 1991. Paradoxically, the Osiraq attack may have actually stimulated rather than inhibited the Iraqi nuclear program. The attack itself may have persuaded Saddam to accelerate Iraqi efforts to become a nuclear weapons power. While we can only speculate on this point, we do know that Saddam publically portrayed the attack as having successfully destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program. Following Osiraq, the entire Iraqi nuclear effort moved underground, as Saddam simultaneously ordered a secret weapons program that focused on uranium separation as a path to building a bomb. Saddam may have increased his support his support for the nuclear program after the Osiraq attack, rehabilitating an important Iraqi nuclear physicist from prison and by one account increasing the man power and resources devoted to the nuclear program by more than 15-fold.

In short, before the Osiraq attack, both the French and the IAEA opposed the weaponization of Iraq's nuclear research program, and had a number of instruments to constrain weaponization, including control over, including control over reactor fuel supply and multiple and continuous inspections. After the Osiraq attack, the program became secret, Saddam's personal and material commitment to the program grew, and the non-proliferation tools available to the international community became ineffective. [The Nonproliferation Review, July 2005, emphasis added] 

Former CIA Director Hayden Warned That A Strike On Iran Would Almost Guarantee That Iran Acquires Nukes 

Hayden: Iran Attack Would "Guarantee That Which We Are Trying To Prevent -- An Iran That Will Spare Nothing To Build A Nuclear Weapon And That Would Build It In Secret." At an event hosted by a non-partisan public policy institution, the Center for the National Interest, Michael Hayden, director of the CIA during the Bush administration, warned that an attack on Iran would "guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret." [DeepJournal.com, 1/26/12] 

Recent Polls Show A Majority Of Israelis Oppose A Unilateral Strike On Iran 

Justifying A Possible Israeli Strike On Iran, Cohen Claimed That "Iran's Program Looks Different From Tel Aviv Than It Does From Washington." From Cohen's column: 

Sanctions may cause Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, if indeed that's where it is now heading. But critics of Israel's approach have to understand that Iran's program looks different from Tel Aviv than it does from Washington. In the long run, an Israeli attack on Iran will accomplish nothing. In the short run, it could accomplish quite a lot. [The Washington Post, 3/19/12] 

But A Haaretz Poll Found That 58 Percent Of Israelis "Opposed An Israeli Strike On Iran, Without U.S. Backing." The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported: 

Most Israelis believe that if the United States does not attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel must no try to do so alone, according to a Haaretz poll.

The Haaretz-Dialog poll, conducted under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University on Sunday and Monday during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, also showed that the prime minister's Likud party would win big in the next election, taking between 35 and 37 seats.

Likud, the rest of the right wing and the ultra-Orthodox parties would get between 71 and 74 mandates. Under such a scenario, only Netanyahu would be able to form a government.

However, Netanyahu, who returned to Israel on Wednesday, is facing a complex political situation.

On the one hand, he and his party seem to be in top political form. On the other, 58 percent of those polled opposed an Israeli strike on Iran, without U.S. backing. [Haaretz, 3/8/12] 

Israel Democracy Institute: 62.2 Percent Of Israelis "Moderately Oppose" Or "Strongly Oppose" An Israeli Attack On Iran Without U.S. Cooperation. A poll by The Guttman Center at the Israel Democracy Institute in February found that 36.1 percent of Israeli's "moderately oppose" an Israeli attack on Iran without U.S. cooperation and 26.1 percent "strongly oppose" such an attack. From the poll:

[The Guttman Center, February 2012]

Poll: 56 Percent Of Israelis Oppose A Pre-Emptive Israeli Strike On Iran. Israel National News reported on March 22: 

A new poll released Wednesday finds that most Israelis are against a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The poll, which was conducted by Panel Project and reported on Channel 10 News, asked Israelis about their feelings regarding an attack in Iran, the performance of the prime minister and who is best suited to serve as prime minister of Israel.

The poll found that the majority of Israelis, 56 percent, are opposed to an Israeli attack against Iran. Only 23 percent support such an attack, while 21 percent said they had no opinion. [Israel National News, 3/22/12]

On February 23, 2012, Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee regarding the impact of new health care regulations on expanding contraception coverage. Her point - that a prescription medication used to treat a wide variety of women's health issues should be covered by health insurance - was lost on Rush Limbaugh, who took the opportunity to use his radio platform to viciously and personally attack her repeatedly over several days. Since those attacks, dozens of advertisers have left his show and more than one hundred others have refused future association. But even in the face of this public outcry, Limbaugh has not changed his behavior and continues with his standard misogynistic and hateful language.

"Slut": Limbaugh Lashes Out At Law School Student

Limbaugh's Vicious Attacks On Fluke Resulted In Public Outcry And Advertiser Exodus

The Exodus Is Having An Impact On Limbaugh...

...That He Refuses To Acknowledge

His Conservative Buddies Just Don't Know What To Do

Limbaugh's Power In The GOP Has Been Threatened

The "Apology" Issued By Limbaugh Wasn't Nearly Enough

And The "Apology" Didn't Result In A Change In Behavior

But That's No Surprise, Given His Long History Of Anti-Woman Rhetoric

Women Haven't Been The Only Target For Limbaugh's Attacks...

... And Those Attacks Aren't The Only Reasons Advertisers Should Spurn Him

"Slut": Limbaugh Lashes Out At Law School Student

February 29

RUSH LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled.

March 1 

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "I will buy all of the women at Georgetown university as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want" ... contraception coverage is "flat-out thievery" because taxpayers will pay for "personal sexual desires and habits" ... mocking Sandra Fluke with baby voice, crying: "I'm going broke having sex. ... It's not fair" ... women with contraceptive coverage must post sex videos online "so we can all watch" ... "Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade?" ... Sandra Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk" ... five dollars for a month of birth control? "that makes PMS almost worth it" ... Fluke went to Georgetown as "an anti-Catholic plant from the get-go" ... contraceptive coverage is "welfare disguised as women's health" or "reproductive rights"

March 2

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Nobody's asking Fluke about "backing off the amount of sex" she has ... contraceptive coverage is like a woman "knocking on my door" and asking for money because she has to have sex tonight ... the definition of "misogynist" is "a man who hates women almost as much as women hate women" ... Fluke said she's "having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth control pills that she needs" ... Fluke has boyfriends "lined up around the block. They would have been in my day"

Limbaugh's Vicious Attacks On Fluke Resulted In Public Outcry And Advertiser Exodus

Advertisers big and small are fleeing from their association with Limbaugh - 45 within a week of his first vicious attack on Sandra Fluke.

The Rush From Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh Is Bad For Business

Even companies whose ads haven't been airing during The Rush Limbaugh Show are publicly distancing themselves from the association.

The Exodus Is Having An Impact On Limbaugh...

Bloomberg News Highlights The Power Of Social Media In Accountability Campaign For Limbaugh

CNN's John Avlon On Advertiser Exodus From Limbaugh's Show: "This Is The Free Market Working Out"

Limbaugh's Advertiser Exodus Expands Exponentially

MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes Discusses Limbaugh Advertiser Exodus

"Slut" Firestorm Sends Limbaugh Into Crisis Management Mode

CNN Reports That Limbaugh's March 8 WABC Broadcast Included Over "Five Minutes Of Dead Air" During Commercial Breaks

Citing Media Matters' Research, Bloomberg Reports That Even A Free Advertiser Is Asking To Be Dropped From Limbaugh's Show

ABC's World News Reports That "More Big Sponsors" Have Withdrawn From Limbaugh's Show Over Misogynistic Attacks

...That He Refuses To Acknowledge

Rush Limbaugh's Denial

Limbaugh: "Only The Leftists Try To Use Extortion, Pressure, Threats To Silence Opposing Voices"

Limbaugh: "This Show Is About You. It's Not About The Advertisers"

His Conservative Buddies Just Don't Know What To Do

Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attacks Defended By Right-Wing Media

Rush Limbaugh's Misogynistic Comments Roundly Condemned

Limbaugh's Power In The GOP Has Been Threatened

Limbaugh's Unrivaled Influence On Republican Politics

Limbaugh And The Right-Wing Nervous Breakdown

The "Apology" Issued By Limbaugh Wasn't Nearly Enough

Limbaugh Launched 46 Personal Attacks On Fluke; He Apologized For Two Words

Limbaugh "Sincerely Apologize[s]" To Fluke For "Using Those Two Words To Describe Her"

Limbaugh: "I Acted Too Much Like The Leftists Who Despise Me"

Limbaugh Receives Criticism Over His So-Called "Apology" For Misogynistic Attacks On Fluke

Rush Limbaugh Issues Statement Regarding His 3-Day Misogynistic Attack On Sandra Fluke

Limbaugh's Justification For Attacking Fluke Is Nonsense

And The "Apology" Didn't Result In A Change In Behavior

Meet The Three Women Rush Limbaugh Has Degraded Since Sandra Fluke

Rush Says He's "God's Gift To Women" According To The Logic Of The "Feminazis"

Limbaugh Says "Infobabe" Had Her "Tongue Hanging Out" While Writing Supposedly Pro-Obama Article; Makes Panting Noises

Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamonds"

Referring to "NAGs," Limbaugh Asks: "How Can I Be Anti-Woman? I Even Judged A Miss America Pageant"

Rush On Female Author: "What Is It With All Of These Young, Single White Women? Overeducated Doesn't Mean Intelligent"

Limbaugh's Latest Effort To Deflect Attention From His Misogyny

Limbaugh's Sexism Continues Unabated

But That's No Surprise, Given His Long History Of Anti-Woman Rhetoric

"Feminazi": The History Of Limbaugh's Trademark Slur Against Women

FLASHBACK: Limbaugh To "Feminazi[s]": Love Your Body, "Because Nobody Else Does"

Rush Limbaugh's Decades Of Sexism And Misogyny

Rush On Tour: AIDS, Misogyny, And Suicide Used As Punchlines

 Women Haven't Been The Only Target For Limbaugh's Attacks...

The 20 Worst Racial Attacks Limbaugh's Advertisers Have Sponsored

15 Of Limbaugh's Most Offensive And Controversial Comments Targeting Immigrants

Rush Limbaugh's Worst Advertiser-Sponsored Attacks On The LGBT Community

The 10 Worst Advertiser-Sponsored Moments Limbaugh Laughed At Human Suffering

Limbaugh's Advertisers Sponsored These 10 Attacks On Unions

10 Of Limbaugh's Worst Advertiser-Sponsored Attacks On The Poor

... And Those Attacks Aren't The Only Reasons Advertisers Should Spurn Him

15 Of The Worst Comments Limbaugh's Advertisers Have Sponsored Since 2004

The Habitual Dishonesty Of Rush Limbaugh

FLASHBACK: When Rush Limbaugh's Hate Was Televised

Limbaugh Once Thought Jokes About Race, Ethnicity, And Religion Were Off-Limits

Limbaugh On Obama Campaign Documentary: "Goebbels Would Have Not Allowed This One Out"             

Limbaugh Once Thought Jokes About Race, Ethnicity, And Religion Were Off-Limits

Five Insane Conspiracy Theories Limbaugh's Advertisers Have Sponsored

When Limbaugh Backed Mass-Murdering Warlord Joseph Kony

After waging an epic misinformation campaign during the debate over the Affordable Care Act and throughout the year following its signing, right-wing media have continued attacking the health care law, claiming that it is the "final nail in the coffin of this country" and that it "makes everyone a slave." As the two-year anniversary of the health care law approaches, Media Matters looks back at the right-wing media's latest attacks on health care reform.

America Will End And We Will Become Slaves

Democrats Are "Mediscar[ing]" Americans

The Health Care Law Includes Rationing And "Death Panels"

Health Care Waivers Are "Political Corruption"

The Contraception Mandate Is An "Attack On Religious Freedom" "For Population Control"

FLASHBACK: Previous False, Apocalyptic Health Care Predictions From Right-Wing Media

The Right-Wing Media's Unhinged Health Care Attacks Enter The Second Year AMERICA WILL END AND WE WILL BECOME SLAVES

Rush Limbaugh Claimed Health Care Reform Law Is "The Final Nail In The Coffin Of This Country." On the April 26, 2011, edition of his show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Democrats "are hiding and delaying the final nail in the coffin of this country till after 2012, and that's Obamacare. And that is the final nail in the coffin. In the country as we've known it. Once that implements in full, then all kinds of your freedoms -- our freedoms are in that great peril. Economic and others." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/26/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "Health Care Is The IV To Total State Control Over A Population. Hitler Knew It." On the May 18, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed the health care reform law is "the eventual end of private sector health insurance companies." Limbaugh continued:

LIMBAUGH: It is well known -- authoritarians, totalitarians throughout history have known -- controlling the health care of a society is -- that's like the IV. You go in the hospital, they put an IV in your arm, it's there in case they need to get in, in an emergency to do something else, they've already got the pathway in. Health care is the IV to total state control over a population. Hitler knew it, the Nazis. It's one of the first things that they tried. That will be the Media Tweak of the Day. Although it's nothing new. We've said it before. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/18/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Regular Jonathan Hoenig: Health Care Reform Law "Makes Everyone A Slave." On the November 14, 2011, edition of Fox Business' now-defunct show Freedom Watch, regular Fox News guest Jonathan Hoenig claimed:

HOENIG: For decades [the health care system] has been dominated by programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. And all this proposal does -- all Obamacare does is essentially put the coffin in the private health care industry in this country. It establishes health care as a right, which makes everyone a slave and ruins it for all. [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 11/14/11, via Media Matters]

DEMOCRATS ARE "MEDISCAR[ING]" AMERICANS

Fox's Gretchen Carlson: "Can The President Scare The American People Into His Plan For Saving?" On the April 15, 2011, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that "there's [also] concern about whether or not President Obama is stoking some fear in some of the comments he's been making." Fox & Friends then aired a segment of an ABC News interview with Obama while on-screen text accused Obama of "Playing on the Public's Fear." Later, Carlson asked: "Can the president scare the American people into his plan for saving?" After playing portions of Obama's interview, Carlson asked, "So will fear sell you on the idea of raising taxes?"

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/15/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Neil Cavuto Repeatedly Asserted Democrats Are Using Health Care "Scare Tactics." During the May 7, 2011, edition of his show, Fox News host Neil Cavuto stated that "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius" was "taking scare tactics to a new level" by calling out "the Republican plan to deal with Medicare." Fox contributor Charles Payne agreed that "Democrats continue to use these scare tactics" against GOP Medicare plans. [Fox News, Your World, 5/7/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Chris Wallace: "Scare Tactics In Politics Are Nothing New." During the May 11, 2011, edition of Fox News' Special Report, guest host Chris Wallace adopted the GOP talking point that Democrats are using "scare tactics" to protect programs such as Social Security and Medicare. From Fox News' Special Report: 

CHRIS WALLACE (guest host): Scare tactics in politics are nothing new. Entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare have long been the subject of such attacks. Tonight, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports on what Republicans say is another example of Democrats saying one thing and doing another.

JIM ANGLE (Fox News correspondent): Freshman Republicans are complaining that Democrats are violating a pledge from President Obama not to demonize proposals tackling big problems such as Medicare, including the proposal from Republican Paul Ryan. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/11/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth about how Republicans' Medicare plans could negatively affect seniors, click here.

THE HEALTH CARE LAW INCLUDES RATIONING AND "DEATH PANELS"

Sean Hannity: "Death Panels Are Inevitable." On the January 11 edition of his radio show, Sean Hannity claimed:

HANNITY: [W]hen government has to instill austerity measures, i.e. Greece, i.e. other places in Europe, what happens? The people rebel, they get angry. They feel like they have had the, you know, the floor pulled out from under them. "Where's my retirement?" They don't have the money, they overspent. "Where's my health care?" You have to wait six months for that X-ray. "Where's my - I'm sorry you're too old to get that hip replacement." All these things are happening in Europe. Why would they not happen here? "You're talking about death panels again, Hannity." Death panels are inevitable. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 1/11/12, via Media Matters]

Wall Street Journal: Advisory Board Could Lead To "Political Rationing Of Care For The Elderly." In an April 20, 2011, editorial, The Wall Street Journal wrote that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created in the health care law could lead to "the political rationing of care for the elderly, as now occurs in Britain, or else the board will drive prices so low that many doctors and hospitals drop out of Medicare." [The Wall Street Journal, 4/20/11]

Fox's Andrea Tantaros Fearmongered That Medicare Board Is "Going To Lead To Rationing." On the April 21, 2011, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros stated:

TANTAROS: If I were a senior, I would be extremely disturbed by what the president is proposing. He's actually proposing ... an independent panel -- 15 bureaucrats, 15 government-appointed officials -- this is these "rationing boards" we've heard about, who are going to make decisions about how to limit individual expenditures from Medicare patients.

What does that mean? They're going to decide what programs you can have, and what programs you can't, what's going to be the most cost-effective. This is going to lead to rationing. Just look at England. It always does. If you start to cut payments to doctors, cut payments to hospitals -- which is what the Obama plan does - eventually, doctors start to not want to treat Medicare patients. It's a very, very scary prospect, what the president's proposing. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/21/11, via Media Matters]

Big Government: Obama's "Proposal To Decrease Healthcare Costs ... [Is] Rationing." An April 25, 2011, post on right-wing blog Big Government claimed that the Obama administration's "proposal to decrease healthcare costs ... [is] rationing." The post claimed that the IPAB will likely "limit healthcare costs by reducing access to physicians, restricting choice of treatments, [and] restricting access to medication and technology." [Big Government, 4/25/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth behind the falsehood that the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the health care law will lead to rationing, click here.

HEALTH CARE WAIVERS ARE "POLITICAL CORRUPTION"

Fox's Eric Bolling: Health Care Law Waivers Are "Blatant Cronyism." On the May 11, 2011, edition of his now-defunct Fox Business show, Eric Bolling asked: "So, do you think it's a coincidence that 20 percent of the new Obamacare waivers are for gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, and fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi's district?" He continued: "[S]eriously, the left has absolutely no shame, blatant cronyism. Really? Really? Come on." [Fox Business, Follow The Money, 5/11/11, via Media Matters]

Gretchen Carlson Asked If Waivers Are "Political Corruption." Previewing a segment on the health care waivers on the May 18, 2011, Fox & Friends, Carlson asked: "Political corruption or just simply coincidence?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/18/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity: "Why Does The Word Corrupt Come To My Mind?" On the May 17, 2011, edition of his Fox News show,  Hannity said: "There were 204 brand new Obamacare waivers that were granted in April. Thirty-eight of those 204, or 20 percent, came from, let's see, Nancy Pelosi's district. What does that tell you about, first of all, all the companies wanting waivers, some companies granted waivers, a lot of unions have been granted waivers, and then Nancy Pelosi's district is one of the biggest beneficiaries of waivers for health care? What is your reaction to that?" Hannity also said:

HANNITY: Why does the word corrupt come to my mind when I hear that there's any waivers for any person anywhere? I mean, you know, I understand why McDonald's wanted a waiver, I understand why some companies want it. But, you know, the idea that some people are going to be subjected to this law, you know, it seems like this may even hit the equal protection clause by the time this is all said and done. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/17/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth about the phony health care waivers controversy, click here.

THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE IS AN "ATTACK ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" "FOR POPULATION CONTROL"

Wash. Times' Jeffrey Kuhner: "Profoundly Immoral" Contraception Proposal "Is Essential To Forging A Pagan Society." In a July 21, 2011, Washington Times column, Jeffrey Kuhner called the Institute of Medicine's recommendation that health insurance plans should cover contraception without cost to the consumer part of "Obama's culture of death," which he claimed was "essential to forging a pagan society based on consequence-free sex." From The Washington Times:

The proposal is profoundly immoral. Contraception violates the natural moral order. It decouples sexual intercourse from its main purpose: procreation. It entrenches the hedonistic ethic that sex is about recreation and individual gratification. It strikes at the very heart of a functioning, self-renewing civilization - having children and perpetuating one generation to another. This is why practically every major religion and most cultures have rightly believed that birth control, pornography, homosexuality and adultery are wrong. They threaten the basic institution of society: the traditional family. The family existed before the state; its importance transcends the state. Hence, our ancestors understood that moral standards must be upheld, not demolished. The breakdown of the family inevitably leads to social collapse. [The Washington Times, 7/21/11]

Fox's Greg Gutfeld: Contraception Is The Left's "Way To Eradicate The Poor." On the July 20, 2011, edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld said: "If you're talking about free birth control, who is going to use free birth control? The people who can't afford it. So the left has figured out a way to eradicate the poor. And it's by eradicating the poor." [Fox News, The Five, 7/20/11, via Media Matters]

Andrea Tantaros: "A Lot Of This Is For Population Control. This Has Nothing To Do With Women's Health." On the February 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Andrea Tantaros claimed:

TANTAROS: Well don't forget, Nancy Pelosi thinks birth control is stimulative. These were comments that she made. And a lot of this is for population control, Jehmu [Greene]. This has nothing to do with women's health.

GREENE (Fox News contributor): Population control?

TANTAROS: Yeah, this is what liberals are doing. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/8/12, via Media Matters]

Gretchen Carlson: If Contraception Mandate Is Enforced, "Your Rights Could Be Taken Away Down The Road." On the February 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Gretchen Carlson claimed:

CARLSON: What you brought up earlier is very important to this discussion which is this is about religious freedom.

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Absolutely.

CARLSON:  And just imagine if there was another religion that was being attacked. I mean, I think that's the way to look at this whole thing. Your rights could be taken away down the road. 

On-screen text during the segment stated, "Trumping religious rights?":

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/9/12, via Media Matters]

For the truth behind the right-wing media freakout about the contraception mandate in the health care law, click here.

FLASHBACK: The Right-Wing Media Have A History Of False, Apocalyptic Health Care Predictions

Glenn Beck: "This Is The End Of Prosperity In America Forever ... The End Of America As You Know It." Telling his radio audience, "You must not allow this to pass," Glenn Beck stated in November 2009 that "they're going to get past that 60-vote barrier. And they'll get there by people like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman, who's a reasonable guy and has good intent. You'll get past it by people like that, who say, you know what? Look, we got to be reasonable; we have to have a debate. And then Harry Reid will go for the 51 count and he'll pass this thing. And it will be a nail in the coffin of America." Beck added: "You must -- must get on the phone in your districts. You must wake everybody up you know. This is the end of prosperity in America forever if this bill passes. This is the end of America as you know it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 11/19/09, via Media Matters]

Beck: "The Health Care Bill Is Reparations. It's The Beginning Of Reparations." On the July 22, 2009, edition of his radio show, Beck claimed that "none of [Obama's] bills are about what he says they're about. The health care bill is reparations. It's the beginning of reparations ... the medical schools will get more federal dollars if they have proven that they are putting minorities ahead." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 7/22/09, via Media Matters]

Radio Host Jim Quinn: "You Are Going To See Insurrection. You're Going To See An Uprising." On January 13, 2009, radio host Jim Quinn predicted that "if they pass this thing, you are going to see insurrection. You're going to see an uprising. People are just not going to take this. I mean, your taxes are going to go through the roof. It's going to be a bloodbath when people find out how much this is going to cost and for the first four years, they're not going to get anything." [Clear Channel, The War Room with Quinn & Rose, 1/13/10, via Media Matters]

Neal Boortz: "Obama's Health Care Plan Is Going To End Up Killing People." On the June 17, 2009, edition of his radio show, Neal Boortz claimed, "Obama's health care plan is going to end up killing people ... especially among the ranks of the elderly, there's going to be people who die." [Cox Radio Syndication, The Neal Boortz Show, 6/17/09, via Media Matters]

Fox's Peter Johnson Jr: Health Care Reform Is "The Government Deciding Who Will Live, Who Will Die." On the June 25, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Peter Johnson Jr. claimed that a line from a health care town hall by Obama referencing evidence-based treatments "was the most disturbing quote of the night. President as social engineer, president as bioethicist, the government deciding who will live, who will die. You're too old, you're too young. ... Is that what this plan is about? To save money by killing old people?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/25/09, via Media Matters]

Brian Kilmeade: Health Care Reform Will "Devastate" Health Care Research And Innovation. On the August 13, 2009, edition of his radio show, Brian Kilmeade responded to a caller asking about the effect of the bill on "medical research and stem cell research." Kilmeade claimed it was a "great question and we know the answer. The answer is devastate it. It will take the entrepreneurship and the industrialness [sic] out, and the creativity out of the biotech business." [Fox Radio Network, Brian and the Judge, 8/13/09, via Media Matters]

Right-wing media are falsely claiming that a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the cost of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has doubled since CBO's estimate in 2010. In fact, CBO's analysis actually showed that the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law will cost less than originally estimated.

Right-Wing Media Claim CBO Report Estimated That Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled

Fox's Doocy: Health Care Law "Is Going To Wind Up Costing Us Double, At Least." On the March 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. both claimed that the CBO report showed that the ACA "is going to wind up costing us double, at least." From Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: One hefty price tag. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimating that President Obama's health care law will cost about twice as much as he originally promised. But that it will actually now reduce the nation's overall deficit over time, they say.

[...]

JOHNSON: What the president was talking about and we heard it time and time again, press conference, speech, $900 billion. So in a couple of years now, it's skyrocketed, with new estimates out to 2022 to almost $1.8 trillion.

[...]

DOOCY: You know, this is such a big story, as you look at the national debt and you're talking about the deficit being reduced. This is such a big story that this is going to wind up costing us double at least, although you project quadruple the amount that we were promised and a lot more people will not be insured. And yet the mainstream media, nary a word. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/16/12]

Fox Nation: "Obamacare Twice As Expensive At $900 BILLION Price Tag?" A March 15 Fox Nation post highlighted a FoxNews.com article about the CBO report under the headline, "Obamacare Twice as Expensive at $900 BILLION Price Tag?" From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 3/15/12]

Washington Examiner: Heath Care Law Cost Is "More Than Double What Obama Advertised." In a March 13 post on The Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog, senior editorial writer Philip Klein wrote:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

[...]

Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised. [The Washington Examiner, 3/14/12]

Gateway Pundit: "Obamacare Will Cost Twice As Much As Promised." In a March 14 Gateway Pundit post, conservative blogger Jim Hoft wrote:

In March 2010 leading democrats and their lackeys in the state-run media were "just giddy" to report that they crunched some numbers and found the nationalized health care bill they were pushing would reduce the deficit by $138 billion.

It was a lie. Democrats knew it was a lie...

But, after several backroom deals they rammed the bill through Congress anyway.

[...]

Americans are right to be concerned about our country's enormous debt, especially given the Congressional Budget Office's recent announcement that the health care bill will not in fact provide the deficit reductions the president promised. Republicans are committed to addressing Americans' concerns with fiscally responsible policies that will create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce our nations deficit.

This week the CBO released some revised numbers and the true cost of Obamacare is twice what we were promised. [Gateway Pundit, 3/14/12]

In Fact, CBO Projected ACA's Coverage Provisions Will Actually Cost Less Than Previously Estimated

CBO: Insurance Coverage Provisions Will Be "About $50 Billion Less Than" Previous Estimate. In the March 13 companion blog to CBO's 2012 estimate of PPACA's insurance coverage provisions, CBO reported:

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

[...]

Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher

The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions -- $1,496 billion through 2021 -- is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO's and JCT's estimates -- to $413 billion -- leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.

Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion. [CBO, 3/13/12, emphasis in original]

Reuters: "The Estimated Costs" Of ACA's Insurance Coverage "Have Been Reduced By $48 Billion Through 2021." From a March 13 Reuters article:

The estimated net costs of expanding healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's landmark restructuring have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed on Tuesday.

[...]

By reducing the estimated net 2012-2021 costs to $1.083 trillion from $1.131 trillion a year ago, the CBO report could help Democrats blunt some of the criticism over the high costs of extending coverage to some 47 million uninsured Americans, as they try to tout savings elsewhere in the law.

These cost reductions are largely due to lower estimates for subsidies and tax credits associated with the law's planned insurance exchanges for individual coverage. [Reuters, 3/13/12]

CBSNews.com: "CBO Lowers Health Reform Cost Estimate." A March 14 CBSNews.com article noted:

Congressional economists are estimating somewhat lower costs for covering the uninsured under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, as well as slightly fewer people gaining coverage.

Assuming the Supreme Court does not overturn the law, the Congressional Budget Office would reduce the number of uninsured by 30 million in 2016, or 2 million fewer people than estimated last year. Total costs from 2012-2021 are about $50 billion lower than estimated last year. That's due to a combination of factors, including overall health care costs rising more slowly than in the recent past. [CBSNews.com, 3/14/12]

New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Cohn: "No, Obamacare's Cost Didn't Just Double." In a March 15 post on The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform's cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

[...]

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion -- the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It's only slightly more money than the previous year's outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don't start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

[...]

The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.[The New Republic, 3/15/12]

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The Cost Of Obamacare Has Gone Down, Not Up." In a March 15 Mother Jones post, Kevin Drum wrote:

Republicans rushed to the microphones today to announce that new projections show that Obamacare will break the bank. In fact, says Fox News, a CBO reports says that it will cost "twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."

You will be unsurprised to learn that this is not true.

[...]

As Table 1 shows, if you compare the original 2012-21 time period, CBO's new estimate of the cost of Obamacare is $48 billion less than it was last year. (The report estimates only the cost of expanded insurance coverage under Obamacare, not the entire set of costs and revenues. So the total impact on the deficit hasn't yet been updated.) [Mother Jones, 3/15/12]

Klein: CBO Report "Shows The Net Cost Of The Coverage Provisions Will Be About $50 Billion Less Than Previously Estimated." In a March 15 post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted that those claiming PPACA costs will increase "didn't read this analysis closely." From The Washington Post:

You'll notice something about the above list: It appears to add up to a net reduction in the cost of the health-care law. And, sure enough, here's CBO: "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period--about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate." You would get the opposite impression reading Ransom.

[...]

But those other parts of the bill aren't a secret. They're mentioned right there in the analysis. Quoting again: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

It's easy to do at least some of the update ourselves. This analysis shows the net cost of the coverage provisions will be about $50 billion less than previously estimated. That implies the law will cut more, not less, from the deficit than previous estimates suggested. In other words, this estimate says the bill is more, not less, fiscally responsible than was previously reported.[The Washington Post, 3/15/12]

Right-wing media have defended the New York Police Department's (NYPD) surveillance of American Muslims throughout the Northeast, engaging in anti-Muslim rhetoric and dismissing concerns of civil rights groups while doing so. But law enforcement experts have said that the program has a "negative impact" on the ability to gather counterterrorism intelligence, and lawmakers from across the political spectrum have criticized the program.

AP: NYPD Monitored American Muslims Throughout The Northeast

AP: NYPD "Monitored Muslim College Students Far More Broadly Than Previously Known, At Schools Far Beyond The City Limits." The Associated Press reported on February 18:

The New York Police Department monitored Muslim college students far more broadly than previously known, at schools far beyond the city limits, including the elite Ivy League colleges of Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, The Associated Press has learned.

Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles (480 kilometers) away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed.

Detectives trawled Muslim student websites every day and, although professors and students had not been accused of any wrongdoing, their names were recorded in reports prepared for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

[...]

In recent months, the AP has revealed secret programs the NYPD built with help from the CIA to monitor Muslims at the places where they eat, shop and worship. The AP also published details about how police placed undercover officers at Muslim student associations in colleges within the city limits; this revelation has outraged faculty and student groups.

Though the NYPD says it follows the same rules as the FBI, some of the NYPD's activities go beyond what the FBI is allowed to do.

Kelly and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg repeatedly have said that the police only follow legitimate leads about suspected criminal activity.

But the latest documents mention no wrongdoing by any students. [AP, 2/18/12]

"Protecting America From Jihadist Attacks": Right-Wing Media Defend NYPD Surveillance Program

Discussing NYPD Program On Fox, Donald Trump Says NYPD Has "To Go Where The Action Is." During the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News regular Donald Trump claimed that the NYPD's surveillance of Muslims was warranted and that the NYPD has "to go where the action is." From the broadcast:

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): [T]he New York Police Department's Muslim surveillance program that's been in effect for quite some time. When Eric Holder, the attorney general was asked about this under oath last week, he said yeah, I'm sort of troubled with the way that they have been going about their surveillance. What do you make of this? Because the last time I checked, this police department had thwarted 14 potential terrorist attacks that the general public never even found out about because they took care of them.

TRUMP: Well, Gretchen, there's an expression, go where the action is and let's not kid ourselves, that's where the action is. Whether we like it, whether we don't like it, whether it's politically correct which, perhaps, it isn't. You have to go where the action is. And Ray Kelly, the commissioner in New York is one of the great[est] ever in any country, in any state as a police commissioner. I mean, Ray Kelly has done an amazing job as the police commissioner of New York City and I have great trust in Ray Kelly but he's looking at it from the standpoint of let's -- let's see what's happening in the areas that are very troublesome. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/12/12, via Media Matters]

Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller: Through Surveillance Of Muslims, NYPD Is "Protecting America From Jihadist Attacks." In a March 8 post on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller wrote:

America, you are under siege from within. The Department of Justice, the de facto legal arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, is going to investigate the NYPD for ....... protecting America from jihadist attacks.

Over 45 Islamic plots have been thwarted since 911, and close to 200 Muslims have been arrested in thwarted jihad plots. How does that happen? Intel, that's how. Who is the DoJ going after? The most effective counter jihad law enforcement org in the world. Are you surprised, knowing how thoroughly compromised Obama's DoJ is?

[...]

No constitutional protections were contravened.

This is an attempt to intimidate the NYPD into dropping all efforts to stop jihad terror plots. [Atlas Shrugs, 3/8/12]

Fox's Trotta: "It Was Muslims Who Knocked Down Two Buildings In 2001." During the March 4 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta defended the NYPD's surveillance of Muslims, claiming, "It was Muslims who knocked down two buildings in 2001." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/4/12, via Media Matters]

New York Post Cartoon: "Hello, AP Press? ... I'd Like To Register A Complaint Against the N.Y.P.D. For Spying On Us. In a February 24 New York Post cartoon, illustrator Sean Delonas presented the following:

[NY Post, 2/24/12]

But Law Enforcement Experts Have Criticized The NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program

Newark FBI Chief: NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program Is "Starting To Have A Negative Impact." From a March 7 CBS New York article:

The head of the Newark FBI said Wednesday the NYPD's monitoring of Muslims in New Jersey has had a chilling effect on the feds' ability to gather counter terrorism intelligence.

[...]

"What we're seeing now with the uproar that is occurring in New Jersey is that we're starting to see cooperation pulled back. People are concerned that they're being followed. People are concerned that they can't trust law enforcement," said FBI Newark Special Agent in Charge Michael Ward.

Ward said the NYPD's spying on mosques and Muslim businesses in the Garden State has caused sources to dry up and made the job of gathering counter terrorism intelligence much more difficult, reports CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer.

"It's starting to have a negative impact. When people pull back cooperation it creates additional risks. It creates blind spots. It hinders our ability to have our finger on the pulse of what's going on around the state," Ward said. [CBS New York, 3/7/12]

Newark Police Director: "We Really Want To Be Clear: This Type Of Activity Is Not What The Newark PD (Police Department) Would Ever Do." From a February 22 AP article:

Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio was deputy chief of the department at the time. He said the NYPD asked to be shown around the city. New York police said it was part of an investigation but never revealed what it was about, DeMaio said.

"We really want to be clear: This type of activity is not what the Newark PD (police department) would ever do," he said. [AP, 2/22/12, via MSNBC.com]

Dearborn, MI, Police Chief: There Are Limits To The Value Of Surveillance. From a March 11 AP article:

Ron Haddad, the chief of police in Dearborn, Mich., where close to 40 percent of the city's nearly 100,000 residents are Arab- and Muslim-Americans, said there are limits to the value of surveillance. "The intelligence people tell you the only thing they can give you are indicators, and the indicators are very limited and nothing is absolute," Haddad said.

And so, police in Dearborn focus on building a relationship with city's Arab- and Muslim-Americans. They have asked Islamic leaders for advice and continually train officers to recognize the customs of various ethnic groups, including Muslims, to avoid offending members of those communities. Haddad said they have also taken care to openly and meticulously explain general police practices and, on occasion, even the specific details of ongoing investigations.

"If you can tell them, you need to tell them," Haddad said. He added, "The danger in not making the appropriate disclosure is they are going to be more suspicious of you." [AP, 3/11/12, via The Washington Post]

Chicago Police Supt.: Chicago PD Will Not Conduct Similar Surveillance: "We Are Deeply Committed To Respecting The Civil Rights Of All Chicagoans." In a March 4 CBS Chicago article, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said that his department "does not and will not conduct blanket surveillance and profiling of any community in the city of Chicago" and that "[w]e are deeply committed to respecting the civil rights of all Chicagoans." From the article:

For the first time in public, Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy promised his department will never conduct blanket surveillance of Muslims like the New York Police Department did in Newark, N.J., when he was chief there.

McCarthy addressed hundreds of Muslims on Saturday at the annual banquet of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Chicago, a civil rights organization. He said police would follow leads in criminal cases, but the department "does not and will not conduct blanket surveillance and profiling of any community in the city of Chicago."

"We are deeply committed to respecting the civil rights of all Chicagoans," McCarthy said. [CBS Chicago, 3/4/12]

Top Chicago Prosecutor Criticizes NYPD Surveillance Program: "The Distrust Starts With Police And Goes Right To Us As Well." From a March 10 AP article:

Such surveillance has the potential to erode a community trust in law enforcement that extends far beyond the police, said the top prosecutor in Chicago, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.

"We get lumped in with the police," she said. "The distrust starts with police and goes right to us as well."

The break can last for decades, Alvarez said. Chicago authorities are still trying to recover from the fracture with the black residents that stems from the actions of police Lt. Jon Burge, whose South Side unit tortured dozens of African-Americans into confessing to crimes they did not commit in the 1970s and 80s. [AP, 3/10/12, via The Washington Post]

New Jersey Lawmakers -- Where NYPD Reportedly Monitored Muslims -- Have Criticized NYPD's Program

Newark Mayor Cory Booker: Surveillance Is "Deeply Offensive." From a February 22 AP article:

"If anyone in my police department had known this was a blanket investigation of individuals based on nothing but their religion, that strikes at the core of our beliefs and my beliefs very personally, and it would have merited a far sterner response," Newark Mayor Cory Booker said.

[...]

"It is deeply offensive for me to do blanket surveillance for no reason other than religious affiliation," said Booker, who called on his state's attorney general to investigate. [AP, 2/22/12, via MSNBC.com]

NJ Gov. Chris Christie: NYPD Surveillance Of Newark Muslims Is "Disturbing." From a February 22 AP article:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was the top federal prosecutor in the state in 2007, said he didn't remember the NYPD ever approaching him about surveillance in the city or a threat that would justify it. He called the Newark report "disturbing."

"The NYPD has at times developed a reputation of asking forgiveness rather than permission," he said. [AP, 2/22/12, via MSNBC.com]

Christie further stated in the Newark The Star-Ledger: "I don't know if this NYPD action was born out of arrogance, or out of paranoia, or out of both ... but we're taking a real good, strong hard look at it from a policy perspective at the governor's office level." [The Star-Ledger, 2/29/12]

Civil Rights Groups Have Also Condemned The Program As "Insane And Ludicrous"

Star-Ledger: Three Dozen Groups File Complaint Over NYPD Muslim Surveillance. From The Star-Ledger:

Three dozen groups -- including civil rights, religious, student and civic organizations -- filed a complaint today with the state Attorney General's Office seeking an examination of the New York Police Department's surveillance of Muslims in 2007 and 2009 in Newark and New Brunswick.

"The seriousness of this problem cannot be overstated, and we urgently request that you conduct a prompt investigation into this matter," according to the complaint sent to Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa, who is overseeing a review of the incidents. [The Star-Ledger, 3/6/12]

CAIR-Chicago Executive Director: "The Fact That The NYPD Is Spying On American Citizens, Who Happen To Be Muslim, Is Insane And Ludicrous." From the CAIR-Chicago website:

CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab is asking Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Garry McCarthy, to speak out on a secret operation to spy on Muslims in New York and New Jersey. The spying on Muslims was carried out by NYPD in 2007 while McCarthy was the Director of NYPD.

Rehab spoke to ABC regarding the secret operation, in which the NYPD's Demographics Unit took photographs of mosques and eavesdropped in Muslims businesses throughout the New York and New Jersey area.

"The fact that the NYPD is spying on American citizens, who happen to be Muslim, is insane and ludicrous. It's illegal and unconstitutional," said Rehab. "Anyone aware of such an egregious violation of our Constitution and the very spirit upon which it stands ought to report it." [CAIRChicago.org, 2/23/12]

Fox News and Fox Business have leaped to the defense of Texas' voter ID law after the Justice Department moved to prevent its implementation, saying that the legislation violated the Voting Rights Act. Fox's coverage has been filled with false and misleading claims.

To learn about how Fox similarly misled its audience after the Justice Department blocked South Carolina's voter ID law, click here.

Fox Suggested Voter ID Needed To Stop Voter Fraud...

"Straight News" Anchor Scott: "We Are Having A Problem With Voter Fraud." On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, anchor Jon Scott suggested Texas' voter ID law is needed because "we are having a problem with voter fraud right now." [Fox News, Happening Now, 3/13/12]

... But Actual Instances Of Voter Fraud Are Few And "Scattered"

Supreme Court Plurality Actually Found Only "Scattered Instances Of In-Person Voting Fraud." The Supreme Court plurality in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board did not find widespread in-person voter fraud, the type of fraud that a requirement that voters show identification at their polling places is meant to address. Rather, it found only "scattered instances" of such fraud. From the plurality opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

Judge Barker cited record evidence containing examples from California, Washington, Maryland, Wisconsin, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Miami, and St. Louis. The Brief of Amici Curiae Brenan Center for Justice et al. in Support of Petitioners addresses each of these examples of fraud. While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud. For example, after a hotly contested gubernatorial election in 2004, Washington conducted an investigation of voter fraud and uncovered 19 "ghost voters." Borders v.  King Cty., No. 05-2-00027-3 (Super. Ct. Chelan Cty., Wash., June 6, 2005) (verbatim report of unpublished oral decision), 4 Election L. J. 418, 423 (2005). After a partial investigation of the ghost voting, one voter was confirmed to have committed in-person voting fraud. Le & Nicolosi, Dead Voted in Governor's Race, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 7, 2005, p. A1. [U.S. Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 4/28/08]

Justice Department Report Shows Very Few Prosecutions For Illegally Casting Ballots. According to a report by the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, from October 2002 through September 2005, the Justice Department charged 95 people with "election fraud" and convicted 55. Among those, however, just 17 individuals were convicted for casting fraudulent ballots; cases against three other individuals accused of casting fraudulent votes were pending at the time of the report. In addition, the Justice Department convicted one election official of submitting fraudulent ballots and convicted five individuals of registration fraud, with cases against 12 individuals pending at the time of the report. Thirty-two individuals were convicted of other "election fraud" issues, including Republicans convicted of offenses arising from "a scheme to block the phone lines used by two Manchester [New Hampshire] organizations to arrange drives to the polls during the 2002 general election." In other words, many of these convictions were connected to voter suppression efforts, not voter fraud. Several other people listed in the report were convicted of vote-buying. [Department of Justice, accessed 3/13/12]

NYU's Brennan Center: Allegations Of Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out" And Distract From "Real [Election] Problems That Need Real Solutions." From a 2007 report by The Brennan Center for Justice:

Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up -- when any exists -- is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

These inflated claims are not harmless. Crying "wolf" when the allegations are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems that need real solutions. If we can move beyond the fixation on voter fraud, we will be able to focus on the real changes our elections need, from universal registration all the way down to sufficient parking at the poll site. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. Overly restrictive identification requirements for voters at the polls -- which address a sort of voter fraud more rare than death by lightning -- is only the most prominent example. [Brennan Center for Justice, accessed 3/13/12]

For more on how voter fraud is "not overwhelming" see here, see here and see here.

Fox Pushed Fallacy That Photo ID Should Be Required To Vote Because It's Required For Other Purposes...

Scott: "So Why Is It OK To Require ID When Cashing A Check... But Not At The Polls?" Introducing a discussing of the Texas law during the March 13 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, anchor Jon Scott asked Andrew Napolitano, "So why is it OK to require ID when cashing a check or boarding a plane and not at the polls?" He later added, "I have an ID to drive, I have to show an ID to check into a hotel. Rich Lowry makes the point that you have to show an ID to get into the building that houses Eric Holder's Justice Department." [Fox News, Happening Now, 3/13/12]

The Five Hosts: You Need An ID to "Get Into P.G. Movies," Get Food Stamps, Get Medication. From the March 12 edition of The Five:

GREG GUTFELD: I think that if I got -- if I need an ID to get medication, which I do every day. Then you should have an ID to vote.

And they can't say it's poll tax, if it's -- I mean, if it's free. I understand if you got to pay for it. But if it's free, how is it a poll tax? No one has explained that to me.

DANA PERINO: And if people don't have an ID, then we should help them get an ID. But if -- the point of, I have to have an ID to get in any of the buildings around here.

GUTFELD: You need an ID to get into P.G. movies.

KIMBERLEY GUILFOYLE: Well, that's the point. You're going to have to an ID --

ERIC BOLLING: You have to have an ID to get food stamps and other benefits?

GUILFOYLE: Yes. [Fox News, The Five, 3/12/12, via Nexis]

Fox & Friends' Carlson: You Need ID To Buy Cigarettes, Alcohol, Sudafed, Rent Cars Or Hotel Rooms. On the March 13 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said:

[L]et's just take a look at a simple list of what we're required to show ID for in general society. To buy cigarettes and alcohol. To purchase an R-rated movie ticket. To even buy Sudafed now. To rent a car, to get a hotel room, and I could go on and on, Mr. Adams, even to get a beach pass in my community, you have to show several forms of ID. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/13/12]

Ingraham: "Can't Get On A Plane Without An ID" Discussing the DOJ's action while guest-hosting the March 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "Can't get on a plane. Can't get on a plane without an ID. Can't get on a plane, but you know, you can vote." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 3/12/12, via Nexis]

...But Election Experts Say That Such Analogies Are Invalid...

Loyola Associate Professor Levitt On Voting Analogy: "Drinking A Beer Is Very Nice," But "I Don't See That In The Constitution." From Loyola Law School Associate Professor Justin Levitt's September 8, 2011, testimony before a Senate subcommittee:

One word on airplanes -- Mr. von Spakovsky is fond of saying that you need photo ID to board a plane. I wish he'd add "and I'm George Clooney" because neither one is true. To get to you today, I had to board a plane from Los Angeles. I never showed photo ID. While waiting in the terminal, I drank a beer while waiting for the flight and quite enjoyed it. I never showed ID. To come testify before you today, I had to walk right in through this federal building and never showed ID. In fact, I haven't had photo ID in my wallet the entire week.

Airlines, restaurants, federal buildings have figured out ways of accommodating real American citizens without restricting them to single ID cards and as a fundamental constitutional right, so should all elections in the country. The airplane analogy is also beside the point. This is the last thing I'll mention. Voting is in two articles of the Constitution, in 10 amendments of the Constitution. It's featured at the very heart of our constitutional order.

Boarding a plane is nice. Drinking a beer is very nice. But outside of Prohibition, I don't see that in the Constitution. [Levitt testimony at a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 9/8/11, via Nexis]

ACLU South Carolina Executive Director Middleton: "It's Not A Constitutional Right To Buy Sudafed Or Become A Frequent Flier." In October 2011, the William & Mary Election Law Society reported of an interview with ACLU South Carolina executive director Victoria Middleton:

Photo IDs are required for many activities these days, from boarding a plane to purchasing a six-pack of beer. When asked if it was unreasonable to ask an individual to present an ID to vote, Middleton said, "It's not a constitutional right to buy Sudafed or become a frequent flier." She continued, "People fought and died to win the right to vote." [William & Mary Election Law Society, 10/28/11]

... And Even Vote Fraudster J. Christian Adams Called The Analogy "Silly And Constitutionally Incorrect"

Adams: Arguments "Flimsy" Since "The 15th Amendment Is In Play When It Comes To Voting." In a BigGovernment.com piece attacking the DOJ's letter, J. Christian Adams wrote:

Finally, don't fall into the silly and constitutional incorrect argument that you have to show ID to cash a check and get on a plane. Flimsy arguments like that are what the left wants from you. The 15th Amendment is in play when it comes to voting.  It prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is passed to enforce that part of the Constitution. Cashing a check isn't found in the Constitution, and people who love the Constitution shouldn't equate a plane trip with the right to vote free from racial discrimination. [BigGovernment.com, 12/24/11]

For information on Adams' constant attacks on the Obama DOJ and defenses of voter ID laws, see here and here.

Fox Promoted Falsehood That Supreme Court Precedent Invalidates DOJ's Ruling...

Dobbs Promotes Claim That Texas Voter ID Law Is "Based On The Indiana Law... Upheld By The Supreme Court." On the March 12 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs said:

The powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith, reminded the president and his besieged attorney general that the Texas voter ID law is based on the Indiana law.

That the voter identification law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court just about four years ago. [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/12/12, via Nexis]

Fox Guest Sekulow: "Best Argument" For Texas Voter ID Law Is Supreme Court "Recently Said These Laws Are OK." During a March 13 appearance on America's Newsroom, Jordan Sekulow said:

In fact, the Supreme Court in an opinion written by former Justice -- probably one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices in recent history, John Paul Stevens, they upheld a very similar law, almost the exact same law in Indiana in 2008, so not a long time ago, 6-3, with Justice Stevens writing the opinion. Now he's been replaced by Justice Kagan, but there's still five votes there on the court for these kind of laws. So I think that's the best argument right there, is the Supreme Court has recently said these laws are OK if you take the safeguards that Texas did. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 3/13/12]

... But Supreme Court Case Did Not Address Whether Indiana Voter ID Law Violated Law DOJ Is Citing

Indiana Complaints Alleged That The New Law Violated The 14th Amendment. From the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

Promptly after the enactment of SEA 483 in 2005, the Indiana Democratic Party and the Marion County Democratic Central Committee (Democrats) filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the state officials responsible for its enforcement, seeking a judgment declaring the Voter ID Law invalid and enjoining its enforcement. A second suit seeking the same relief was brought on behalf of two elected officials and several nonprofit organizations representing groups of elderly, disabled, poor, and minority voters. The cases were consolidated, and the State of Indiana intervened to defend the validity of the statute.

The complaints in the consolidated cases allege that the new law substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; that it is neither a necessary nor appropriate method of avoiding election fraud; and that it will arbitrarily disfranchise qualified voters who do not possess the required identification and will place an unjustified burden on those who cannot readily obtain such identification. Second Amended Complaint in No. 1: 05-CV-0634-SEB-VSS (SD Ind.), pp. 6-9 (hereinafter Second Amended Complaint). [U.S. Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 4/28/08]

DOJ Blocked Texas' Law Under Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act.  In his March 12 letter to the Texas Elections Division blocking the state's voter ID law, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote:

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); 28 C.F.R. 51.52. In light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the changes affecting voting that are occasioned by Sections 9 and 14 of Chapter 123 (S.B. 14) (2011). [DOJ letter to Texas, 3/12/12]

Indiana Is Not A "Covered Jurisdiction" Under Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act And Was Not Subject To Preclearance. According to the Department of Justice, neither the state of Indiana nor any county or township within is a "covered jurisdiction" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning that the state's laws are not subject to preclearance. [Justice.gov, accessed 3/13/12]

When Rush Limbaugh first began using the term "feminazi" in the 1990s, he said that it described "a specific type of feminist" and that there were "probably no more than 25 of them." However, since then, he has used the term as a broader slur to attack feminists, pro-choice activists, and progressive women.

Limbaugh Debuted "Feminazi" In Early '90s, Saying It Refers To "A Specific Type Of Feminist"

Limbaugh In 1992 Book: "I Prefer To Call The Most Obnoxious Feminists What They Really Are: Feminazis. ... I Often Use It To Describe Women Who Are Obsessed With Perpetuating A Modern-Day Holocaust: Abortion." In his 1992 book The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaugh defined the term "feminazi" as "a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed." He wrote:

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year, and some feminists almost seem to celebrate that figure. There are not many of them, but they deserve to be called feminazis.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. They don't need men in order to be happy. They certainly don't want males to be able to exercise any control over them. Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women's emancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being precluded from the ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper, inferior role. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn't matter, it's an unviable tissue mass.

Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness. [The Way Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, pages 194-195]

Limbaugh: A "Feminazi" Is "A Specific Type Of Feminist. ... There're Probably No More Than 25 Of Them In The Entire World." On the December 4, 1992, broadcast of Limbaugh's television show, he said:

LIMBAUGH: Now we -- we don't have much time left, but, you know, the audience of this show is growing left and right. We're now the number three most watched late-night television show in the country. The only two shows ahead of us are "Nightline" and Leno on "The Tonight Show." So a lot of people probably are tuning in and watching, Feminazi? Why, how can he say that?' And I -- Feminazi is -- is a specific type of feminist. And so there's no misunderstanding, I simply want to define it for you before we go out of here so you're not upset. A Feminazi -- there're probably no more than 25 of them in the entire world. Well, maybe just in the United States. But a Feminazi is a feminist to whom the most important thing in the world is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible take place. A Feminazi is a woman who gets mad when a pregnant woman is talked into giving birth. Now there aren't very many, and it is not true, as some say, that Feminazis are all feminists. So there you've heard it again. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/4/92, accessed via Nexis]

Limbaugh Biographer Colford: In 1992 Interview, Limbaugh Justified "Feminazi" Term By Saying That "The Millions Of Abortions Performed In The United States Were Comparable To A Holocaust." In his book The Rush Limbaugh Story, Paul D. Colford wrote:

"It is the suffix that drives people crazy," ABC newsman Jeff Greenfield said during his 1992 appearance with Limbaugh at the 92nd Street YM-YWHA in Manhattan. "Feminazi. I mean, that is a movement that did not simply want to silence people, it killed people, by the millions. It is a very powerful, memorable phrase. I think it did you much good in terms of defining you as a person with a colorful and bold turn of phrase. Any regrets about using that particular term?"

No, Limbaugh replied, making it clear that feminazi did not apply to all feminists, but maybe to twenty or so. "I happen to be prolife. I happen to think life is the most sacrosanct thing on the planet, human life. I think that if we cheapen it, or devalue it in any way, then other societal ills result. I do not think it is wise for a society to kill for convenience sake, and I think that is what abortion has become ... A feminazi is a woman, a feminist, to whom the most important thing in her life is seeing to it that all abortions possible take place. That's why there aren't very many. I don't know more than twenty in the whole country. A feminazi is a woman who gets mad when a woman decides to have a baby, is talked out of having an abortion. I really don't understand that, if choice is what this is really all about." He added that the millions of abortions performed in the United States were comparable to a holocaust. [The Rush Limbaugh Story, Paul D. Colford, pages 184-185]

Limbaugh Biographer: "Limbaugh's Claim" Of "Narrow Definition Of Feminazi" Undercut By His "Feminazi Trading Cards" In 1992 Book

Limbaugh Prints Fake Ad For "Feminazi Trading Cards" In 1992 Book Chapter On "Feminism And The Culture War." In his 1992 book, The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaugh concluded the chapter called "Feminism and the Culture War" with a mock ad for "feminazi trading cards":

FEMINAZI TRADING CARDS

FEMALE: I'll give you two Gloria Steinems for one Anita Hill.

ANNOUNCER: Trading cards have always been for males only, it's just not fair, it's just not right.

FEMALE: Damn, I spilled nail polish on my Betty Friedan!

ANNOUNCER: Well. EIB [the Excellence in Broadcasting network] is proud to introduce "Feminazi Trading Cards." For you to save, to collect, to trade. Feminazi Trading Cards are designed with the woman in mind. On the front, an action shot of a leading feminist burning a bra, dominating a TV show, picketing an all-men's club, protesting a Rush Limbaugh concert, charging into a men's locker room. Denouncing Ronald Reagan.

FEMALE: I'd do anything for Pat Schroeder.

ANNOUNCER: On the back, all the vital statistics: waist, hips, the documented age, the number of abortions, and, where applicable, the alimony payments and divorce settlements. Each file has at least one profound thought and a beauty secret. Get them all! Each set includes not only today's feminazi superstars like Molly Yard and Eleanor Smeal, but yesterday's heroes like Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem. Plus, outstanding rookies like Anita Hill and Judge Susan Hoerchner. Don't get left out. Start collecting Feminazi Trading Cards today! [The Way Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, page 204, emphasis original]

Limbaugh Biographer Wilson: "Limbaugh's Claim That He's Always Used A Very Narrow Definition Of Feminazi Is Belied By His Proposal For 'Feminazi Trading Cards.' " In his book The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason, author John K. Wilson wrote:

For decades Limbaugh has been using the term, without apology, to smear the feminist movement.

[...]

Limbaugh has repeatedly asserted that he has been misquoted and was only describing a "few" feminists as feminazis.

[...]

In reality, Limbaugh used that definition of feminazis to define all feminists: "Do you think looking at someone is sexual harassment.? Do you think all men are rapists? Do you think all sex is rape? If your answer to any or all of these questions is no, you are simply not, by definition, a feminist." Considering that it would be almost impossible to find anyone who agrees with any of these statements, he is trying to define an entire movement by a grotesque exaggeration of its most extreme advocates.

The claim that Rush is only insulting twenty-five feminists is absurd, since he argues that "they drive the movement." Rush must believe that the leaders of the feminist movement are secret radicals who have fooled the millions of feminists who agree with them. When he complains that he's been misquoted about feminazis, he is being disingenuous. In fact, Limbaugh has said exactly what he's been accused of. When asked in 1995 about the term "feminazi," he declared: "It's the way I look at the feminist movement." Limbaugh referred to the National Center for Women and Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation as "feminazis." So it's not just twenty-five individuals, but every single feminist organization, its leaders, and millions upon millions of Americans with the same views whom Limbaugh compares to Nazis.

In 2004, Limbaugh named "Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine Lati, and Camryn Manheim" as "famous feminazis." He never explained why he thinks these activists and actresses are opposed to women having babies. Limbaugh has never, in his twenty-five-year career on talk radio, offered any evidence of a single person who fits his definition of a "feminazi": "The definition and real agenda of the feminazi: radical feminists whose objective is to see that there are as many abortions as possible." By this definition, there are literally no feminazis.

And Limbaugh's claim that he's always used a very narrow definition of feminazi is belied by his proposal for "feminazi trading cards": "On the front, an action shot of a leading feminist burning a bra, dominating a TV show, picketing an all-men's club. On the back, all the vital statistics: waist, hips, the documented age, the number of abortions and, where applicable, the alimony payments and divorce settlements." [The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason, John K. Wilson, pages 55-56]

Limbaugh Reportedly "All-But-Dropped" The Term ...

2000 Slate Article: Limbaugh "Has All-But-Dropped The Term 'Feminazi.' " A May 2000 Slate article about talk radio claimed: "Limbaugh has smoothed his rough edges. He has all-but-dropped the term 'feminazi.' " [Slate, 5/26/00]

... But Began Using It Again Regularly In 2000s ...

In June 2005, Limbaugh Claimed He Hadn't "Used That Term [Feminazi] On This Program In Years." On the June 22, 2005, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh claimed, "I haven't used that term [feminazis] on this program in years."

•  But He Used The Term "Feminazis" Eight Times In March And April 2004. Media Matters documented Limbaugh using the term "feminazis" eight times during a six-week span in March and April 2004. [Media Matters, 6/24/05]

... And Used It To Attack Feminists, Progressives, And Abortion-Rights Advocates Throughout the 2000s ...

2004: Limbaugh Referred To Abortion-Rights Activists As "Feminazis." On the April 26, 2004, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said of a rally in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2004:

LIMBAUGH: The feminazis gathered in Washington on Sunday, about a half-million of them, it says here, and it was the first big pro-abortion rally in 12 years. The last one was in 1992 during the -- that campaign, the Bush-Clinton campaign. They trotted themselves out again. In fact, grab me the "Feminist Update" theme. OK, just the last big pro-abort rally that the feminazis had, we actually took audio from it and interposed it, you know, mixed it, with the Forester Sisters and their song "Men," and that gave us our "Feminist Update" theme. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/26/04, via Media Matters]

2004: Limbaugh Again Referred To "The Pro-Choice Crowd" As "Feminazis." On the April 29, 2004, broadcast of Limbaugh's show, Limbaugh said, referring to Feminist Majority Foundation president Eleanor Smeal:

LIMBAUGH: So, to Eleanor Squeal [sic] and the pro-choice crowd, the feminazis who marched in such rage and anger on Sunday, we're so sorry. So, so sorry. Will you please try to find it in your -- well, I won't say, hearts -- minds? Will you try to find it in your minds to forgive any of us who thought that you liberals valued the dignity and worth of every life? For this, we will apologize. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/29/04, via Media Matters]

2005: Limbaugh Called Abortion-Rights Activists "Militant Feminazis" While Dubiously Claiming "The Majority Opinion Of The Country Is Not Pro-Choice." On the August 29, 2005, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh again referred to abortion rights advocates as "feminazis" and claimed that "the militant feminists who have made every abortion, regardless of cost, mandatory," were responsible for alleged lack of support for abortion rights. Limbaugh claimed:

LIMBAUGH: How can this be happening, ladies and gentlemen? How could these people in these states do it? It is happening in blue states as well. How can this be if the majority opinion of the country is pro-choice? Well, the answer to the question is, the majority opinion of the country is not pro-choice. And to whom do we owe gratitude? The militant feminazis, the militant feminists who have made every abortion, regardless of the cost, mandatory, who have made it clear that that's the sole reason they exist. I mean, every abortion possible can happen. Over the years, militant feminazism has backfired on them. With a little help.

•  In Fact, Polls In 2005 Showed Majority Of Respondents Supported Abortion Rights. A July 2005 Gallup poll showed that 51 percent of respondents identified themselves as pro-choice, and a July 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that a "consistent majority of Americans (65%) are opposed to overturning ... Roe v. Wade." [Media Matters, 9/1/05]

2006: Limbaugh Refers To Protesters Who Were Opposing The Confirmation Of Then-Nominee Alito As "Feminazis." On the January 4, 2006, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked about a press conference held by women's groups opposing the confirmation of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. He referred to the participants as "feminazis," saying: "I say keep these freaks out there. Keep these left-wing socialist freaks out there. The feminazis, the 1960s feminazis." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/4/06, via Media Matters]

2007: Limbaugh Refers To Self-Described "Ex-Feminist" Caller As "Former Feminazi." On the July 31, 2007, broadcast of his show, a caller identified herself as "an ex-feminist and a [former] liberal." After the caller joked that she was "an ex-feminazi," Limbaugh later referred to her as "the former feminazi." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/31/07, via RushLimbaugh.com]

2008: Limbaugh Mocks NOW's "Love Your Body Day": "Love Your Body Day If You're A Feminazi ... Because Nobody Else Does." On the October 16, 2008, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh mocked the National Organization for Women's (NOW) Love Your Body Day. Referring to NOW as "the NAGs, National Association for Gals," Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Yesterday was Love Your Body Day, the NAGs. It was Love Your Body Day. The NAGs, the National Organization for Women, the NAGs, National Association for Gals. "For over a decade now, the" NAGs' "Love Your Body campaign has countered the unrealistic beauty standards, gender stereotypes and sometimes harmful messages. 'We are constantly bombarded by media's ideals of what beauty should be,' said the" NAG "Foundation President Kim Gandy."

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Truth of Life Number 24: Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have easier access to the mainstream. So what happens? The very -- the only women who mind sexual harassment -- I'm just kidding, drive-bys. Just kidding, just a little lighthearted interjected comment here. You ever notice a Hooters girl doesn't care? Ahem. Ramming it down their throats day here on the EIB Network.

Feminist truth, undeniable truth of life: feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access -- and here you go, the NAGs with their Love Your Body Day. And actually -- they've got a poster or sign here, it says, "I love my thighs." What is this? "I love my thighs." Love Your Body Day if you're a feminazi, if you're a NAG, Love Your Body Day, because nobody else does. That's what this is all about. They can't stand that there are still pretty women in the world, and they really can't stand that one of the prettiest is a vice presidential nominee, but they do mention Sarah here as having been shellacked and attacked for her looks and so forth -- objectified, they say Sarah has been objectified. But this is also about the woman's movement that took away from us all [sic] the role of women in life. It's all so twisted. So now, Love Your Body Day. Did we need a Love Your Body Day before the feminazis geared up? Love Your Body Day because nobody else will. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/16/08, via Media Matters]

2010: Limbaugh Uses "Feminists" And "Feminazis" Interchangeably When Blaming Them For A "Gender War." On the January 19, 2010, edition of his show, Limbaugh used "feminists" and "feminazis" interchangeably, saying, "See, the feminists have been working for years towards this end, suppressing boys and men. Rather than lifting everybody, the feminazis make it a gender war, with many battles taking place." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/19/10, via Media Matters]

2010: Limbaugh Uses "Feminazis" To Describe Those Who Attack Conservative Women. On the September 20, 2010, edition of his show, Limbaugh discussed the Senate race in Delaware and then-GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell with a caller. Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: The supposed home of tolerance, open-mindedness, progressivism, feminism, all that -- the Democrat Party, liberalism, they are the ones that are viciously attacking [Christine O'Donnell]. They are the ones that viciously attacked all of Bill Clinton's babes. The feminazis never once came to the defense of Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky. They joined in the chorus line -- "trailer trash" or "gold diggers" or what have you. And we made mention of this last week, the observation here that, well, you can dump on these women all you want and nobody is coming to their defense whatsoever. And it is a double standard. There's no question about it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/20/10, via Media Matters]

... And Continues To Do So Today

Nov. 2011: Limbaugh Refers To People Offended By His "Synchronizing Menstrual Cycles" Comment As "Feminazis." On the November 10, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh discussed the sexual harassment allegations against then-GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. Limbaugh wondered "why" Cain's accusers planned to "appear together," asking, "Do they want to synchronize their menstrual periods?" On the November 11, 2011, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said, "The feminazis [are] not happy with me, by the way, over that 'synchronizing menstrual cycles.' " [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/10/11, via Media Matters, 11/11/11, via RushLimbaugh.com]

Feb. 2012: Limbaugh Was Angry Komen "Caved" To The "Feminazis" At Planned Parenthood By Restoring Funding For Breast Cancer Screenings. On the February 3 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation's decision to restore funding for cancer screenings to Planned Parenthood after initially announcing it would stop. Limbaugh said: "And the Susan G. Komen bunch, the Race for the Cure, they have caved big time to the feminazis at Planned Parenthood. It is stunning." [CBS News, 2/3/12; Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/3/12, via Media Matters]

Feb. 2012: Limbaugh Claimed Obama Admin.'s Contraception Regulation Was To Appease "The Democrat Voter Base ... The Feminazis And The Far Left." On the February 7 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh talked about the Obama administration's decision to require most employers, including some that are religiously affiliated, to provide health insurance that covers birth control. Limbaugh said, in part: "This is all about politics. It's all about keeping the Democrat voter base happy -- the feminazis and the far left, who hate the Catholic Church. Obama's doing exactly what his base wants." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/7/12, via Media Matters]

Experts on Korea and U.S. national security have commended a recent deal between the United States and North Korea on nuclear testing as "a positive development" and an indication that the U.S. has "turned a new page with the North Koreans." Nevertheless, conservative media are attacking the deal as a "sham" and a "fool's deal."

U.S. And North Korea Announce Nuclear Deal 

AP: "North Korea Has Agreed To Suspend Uranium Enrichment And A Moratorium On Nuclear And Long-Range Missile Tests In A Breakthrough In Negotiations With The United States." From a February 29 Associated Press article: 

North Korea has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests in a breakthrough in negotiations with the United States. 

The joint announcement Wednesday by the two nations comes little more than two months after the death of longtime ruler Kim Jong Il, and suggests North Korea has met the key U.S. preconditions for restarting multi-nation disarmament-for-aid talks that the North withdrew from in 2009. [Associated Press, 2/29/12] 

Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton: The Deal "Represents A Modest First Step In The Right Direction," But "The United States ... Still Has Profound Concerns." The New York Times reported on February 29:

North Korea has agreed in the past to halt its nuclear efforts, only to back out and then return to the table before breaking off talks once more with a flurry of accusations against the United States. The North Korean statement appeared to leave wiggle room for doing so again, saying the country would carry out the agreement only "as long as talks proceed fruitfully."

"The United States, I will be quick to add, still has profound concerns," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said when she announced the agreement at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Wednesday. "But on the occasion of Kim Jong-il's death, I said that it is our hope that the new leadership will choose to guide their nation onto the path of peace by living up to its obligations. Today's announcement represents a modest first step in the right direction." [The New York Times, 2/29/12]

Experts Commend North Korea Deal As "A Positive Development" 

Former Ambassador To South Korea Under President George H.W. Bush: North Korea Deal "Is Very Significant." In an interview with PBS, Donald Gregg -- former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, national security adviser to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, and chairman emeritus of the board of the Korea Society -- said of the North Korea nuclear deal: 

I think this is very significant.

It's the first major step forward taken by the two countries since President Obama came into office. And it also, I think, says a lot about the way the Kim Jong-un regime in North Korea is going to operate. They're a very hierarchical country. And it's interesting to me that Kim Kye-gwan, who has recently been promoted, was happy to meet with Glyn Davies, who is a lower rank than the man he succeeded, Steve Bosworth.

So there was no talk of hierarchy. There was just a getting down to business on issues that had long divided us and which now we were able to talk about since Kim Jong-un came into power. [PBS.org, 2/29/12] 

Arms Control Association Executive Director: North Korea Deal "Is An Important Step Toward A Verifiable Freeze Of The Most Worrisome North Korean Nuclear Activities." In a February 29 blog post, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, "a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies," wrote:

Concerns still remain, but the news, which follows a Feb. 23-24 round of exploratory U.S.-DPRK bilateral talks in Beijing, is clearly a very welcome and important development. 

As I wrote in my column "Next Moves on North Korea" in Arms Control Today last month, "... it is vital that President Barack Obama re-engage the North Korean regime and re-establish a verifiable freeze of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs before they take yet another turn for the worse."

Republicans and Democrats interested in protecting U.S. and international security have an obligation to put election-year politics aside and support the steps announced by the State Department today.

For Washington and its allies in Asia, it is essential that North Korea's nuclear program remain as limited as possible.

[...]

Today's announcement is an important step toward a verifiable freeze of the most worrisome North Korean nuclear activities. President Barack Obama and Amb. Glyn Davies -- the U.S. point-man on the DPRK -- need to maintain the momentum in the weeks and months ahead. [ArmsControlNow.org, 2/29/12]

Ploughshares Fund Executive Director: The "Agreement Is A Positive Step Toward Increased Security And Stability On The Korean Peninsula." In a February 29 press release, Philip Yun, Executive Director of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, stated: 

This small step forward demonstrates once again that sustained diplomatic outreach is the best way to understand and deal with the threats posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly with respect to North Korea where options are extremely limited. The commitment for a ballistic missile and nuclear test moratorium for the time being limits North Korea's ability to qualitatively improve its nuclear weapons capability.

While it is too early to celebrate, today's agreement is a positive step toward increased security and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Removing the threat of a nuclear weapons or missile test will help to diffuse tensions in the region and create the conditions for further negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program. It's up to North Korea now to meet its commitment and be more transparent, and it's up to the United States to aggressively follow up on this welcome first step. [Ploughshares Fund press release, 2/29/12]

Ploughshares Fund Program Director: With Deal "We Will Gain Reliable Information That We Can Use To Learn More About The Regime And Push Forward With Additional Negotiations." In the same February 29 press release, Paul Carroll, Program Director at Ploughshares Fund, stated:

The important gain in this agreement is a commitment not to test nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles, but also a new avenue for reliable information about one of the world's most opaque regimes. We will gain reliable information that we can use to learn more about the regime and push forward with additional negotiations. With IAEA inspectors and food monitors on the ground, we can better understand North Korea's abilities and foster progress toward de-escalating its nplouguclear [sic] program. [Ploughshares Fund press release, 2/29/12]

Notre Dame Expert On North Korea: Deal "Indicates We Have Turned A New Page With The North Koreans." From a February 29 Guardian article: 

George Lopez, professor of peace studies at Notre Dame university who served on the UN panel of experts for North Korea until last year, said the agreement "indicates we have turned a new page with the North Koreans".

"First, the moratorium will be monitored by the return of IAEA inspectors, which is a significant move to nuclear transparency and stability. Secondly, the delivery of large amounts of nutritional foodstuffs sets a tone for other nations to respond to North Korean needs -- it is an important confidence building measure," he said.

"Finally, the US has reaffirmed the armistice agreement as a platform for peace and has essentially provided a non-aggression pledge, both important to the North. History shows that nations never fully denuclearise without a public non-aggression pledge from their foes." [The Guardian, 2/29/12]

Professor Of Security And Resilience: North Koreal Deal "Shows The Logjam Has Been Broken Between The US And North Korea." From a February 29 Guardian article:

Professor Hazel Smith of Cranfield University said the latest agreement "shows the logjam has been broken between the US and North Korea".

"We have seen it before but the timing is significant; it is so soon after Kim Jong-il's death. Whatever the shifting factions are, it shows the ones who want to push for peaceful compromise have the upper hand," she said.

"It looks like this small space has been used on both sides to open up a dialogue and I think that's very positive. The US is talking about a quarter of a million tonnes of food: that is not a token amount like 10 or 20,000 tonnes. It is a diplomatic sign. It is a pretty big gesture by the US if they go through with it all."

She added that the South Korean elections were also likely to reduce tensions. Relations on the peninsula deteriorated sharply after the President Lee Myung-bak took office and ended his predecessor's policy of free-flowing aid. [The Guardian, 2/29/12; Cranfield.ac.uk, accessed 3/8/12]

University Of Chicago Korea Expert: "This Is A Positive Development And Suggests That The New Leadership Is Turning Toward Reform." In an interview with The Hindu, Bruce Cumings, expert on modern Korean history at the University of Chicago, stated: 

This is a very important agreement. It may have been more or less in hand before Kim Jong Il died, but it does go beyond what experts had expected before that event; it seemed that a deal swapping food for a halt to enriched uranium activities was in the works back then, but this really appears to put a cap on the North's nuclear and missile programme. In the early reports it is not clear if the cap extends to plutonium manufacture as well as halting enriched uranium activities, but the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors suggests that both programmes will be stopped. In any case the moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests is very important, because Washington wants to stop the North from working on a miniaturised nuclear weapon that could become a missile warhead.

[...]

It is hard to know what this agreement says about Kim Jong Un's leadership -- "young and untested," or directly commanding the affairs of state. Clearly he did not oppose it. Kim Jong Un was educated in Europe, and one hopes that gave him a wider view of the world than either his father or his grandfather had. But this is a collective leadership, I think, and the youth and in experience of Kim doesn't come into play on anything but the most critical decisions of war and peace -- where, in the end, the top leader has to say yes or no. I'm sure the leadership hopes there won't be any such decisions for a long while, so that Kim can become a seasoned executive. Furthermore any North Korean leader would find it in his interest to play a waiting game in 2012, pending the outcome of elections this year in Russia, the U.S. and South Korea, and the leadership transition in China. That is all the more true with a transition hastened considerably by Kim Jong Il's unexpected death. All things considered, though, this is a positive development and suggests that the new leadership is turning toward reform, and much less belligerence than in the past few years. [The Hindu, 3/1/12]

Georgetown Professor Of Security Studies: "The Most Recent Development In Dealing With The North Korean Nuclear Program Demonstrates" That "Negotiation Is Indeed The Way Out Of Possible Disaster." In a February 29 National Interest blog post, Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. intelligence community and a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, wrote:

The idea that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was some sort of enticement to negotiate is no more valid with Iran than it was -- as some have argued -- with Libya. (Qaddafi's decisions to get out of terrorism, to end his weapons-development programs and to negotiate a new relationship with the United States came several years earlier.) The high point in Iranian cooperation with the United States came in late 2001 and early in 2002, before the Bush administration slammed the door in the Iranians' face and declared the Axis of Evil. The 2003 invasion was a reminder of Washington's dedication to regime change, not to negotiation.

Negotiation is indeed the way out of possible disaster, and the way to negotiation -- even with the most difficult and obstreperous regimes -- is through patient engagement. The most recent development in dealing with the North Korean nuclear program demonstrates that truth once again. [The National Interest, 2/29/12]

Nevertheless, Right-Wing Media Attack Deal As A "Sham" And A "Fool's Deal" 

Fox's John Bolton: North Korea Deal "Is A Sham, Pure And Simple," The "Latest Display Of U.S. Weakness And Memory Loss." In a March 7 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Fox News contributor and former Bush administration official John Bolton wrote:

Unfortunately, the Leap Day deal is worse than just another failed effort to chitchat North Korea out of its nuclear weapons. It provides a political and economic lifeline to Kim Jong Eun's uncertain new regime, and it schools him on how to outwit America. Tehran's mullahs will take careful note of the Obama administration's desperation to announce a deal, any deal, that can be described as "progress" on the nuclear-proliferation front.

State's pronouncement is extraordinarily limited in scope and verification. It contains nothing new or different from a long string of past "commitments" North Korea has broken and lied about with impunity. Pyongyang has repeatedly violated Security Council resolutions requiring it to cease nuclear and missile activities, a point conspicuously absent from our U.N.-centric administration's publicity about the latest deal.

[...]

Most objectionable morally, despite U.S. denials of a quid pro quo: We are providing 240,000 tons of food aid that will almost certainly be diverted to the DPRK military and other favored recipients. It is a strict canon of U.S. humanitarian assistance that such aid be closely monitored, but there is no reason to believe that monitoring will be any more effective than in the past. Make no mistake, we are simply feeding young Kim's dictatorship.

This agreement is a sham, pure and simple -- which the North's separate communiqué highlights. Pyongyang emphasizes that the deal with Washington is a prelude to resuming the six-party talks (including South Korea, China, Russia and Japan), which will focus on "the lifting of sanctions on the DPRK and provision of light water reactors."

[...]

But diplomacy, like all human activity, is never cost-free. There is always something to lose. In this instance, Washington's declaration that it has no "hostile intent" toward North Korea reduces pressure on the undeniably vulnerable new regime, providing it at least a partial get-out-of-jail-free card for coming misbehavior.

What we should have done is concentrate on finding ways to exploit the North's leadership transition in order to hasten Korean reunification. Unfortunately, last week's deal is visible proof that President Obama never seriously contemplated undertaking this arduous but vital effort, which is now a lost opportunity. Instead, we have strengthened the DPRK's confidence, sustained its nuclear-weapons and missile programs, and prolonged the agony of its people.

Iran, meanwhile, must be relishing this latest display of U.S. weakness and memory loss. Even as the acute threat of military force against Iran has been rising, Tehran sees with laser-sharp clarity that when the going gets tough, Team Obama gets negotiating. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12]

Wash. Post's Jennifer Rubin On North Korea Deal: "Our Habitual Unseriousness Ultimately Emboldens Our Foes And Makes Our Allies Very Nervous." In a February 29 post, conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote:

The real impact here may be on Iran. Certainly, the mullahs would like to get some breathing room from economic sanctions and to stave off a U.S. or, more likely, Israeli attack. Bolton notes that "fake concessions and renewed negotiations are sure to work for them, too." This surely convinces them that the United States will go for any fig leaf to disguise the West's failure to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The administration is less interested, one suspects, in verifiable agreements than in simply having paper deals (even if not co-signed by the other side). What President Obama craves is the appearance of calm, and the illusion of successful diplomacy. Unfortunately, an election strategy is not an effective foreign policy. Our adversaries use phony paper deals to advance their own interests. Our habitual unseriousness ultimately emboldens our foes and makes our allies very nervous. [The Washington Post, 2/29/12] 

National Review Online's Jack David: North Korea Deal "Is Worse Than Bad." In a February 29 National Review Online blog post, Jack David, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and deputy assistant secretary of defense for combating weapons of mass destruction and negotiations policy from 2004 to 2006, wrote:

The announced bargain is worse than bad.

Wholly apart from the fact that North Korea has dishonored each and every non-proliferation agreement it has made over the years and can be expected not to comply with this agreement as well, its promise to suspend already-illegal activities in one location leaves it completely free to continue them elsewhere. Making a single-site moratorium on North Korea's nuclear misconduct the central feature of an agreement is astonishingly foolish, even for an administration like President Obama's that is naturally supine in foreign affairs.

The administration's characterization of North Korea's end of the announced bargain as demonstrating North Korea's "commitment to denuclearization" is an insult to the intelligence of even a person with casual knowledge of North Korea's dispersed nuclear-weapons and missile programs. Can it be that the administration heralds the bargain because this feature will allow it to claim victory even if the same North Korean illegal and dangerous activities continue elsewhere on the peninsula? Is the administration's desire to declare a foreign-policy success so great as to be that myopic? One can imagine President Obama in such circumstances declaring that the agreement was "a good start."

[...]

It is naïve at best for the administration to herald a North Korean "commitment to denuclearization" after the many years of North Korean actions definitively proving the contrary. In light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary that the Kim family regime has given over the years, it is especially foolish for the administration to have reaffirmed that the U.S. has no hostile intent toward Pyongyang. [National Review Online, 2/29/12]

Charles Krauthammer: North Korea Deal Is "Completely Useless," "A Fool's Deal." During the February 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News contributor and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said:

KRAUTHAMMER: Leap day deal, it's a fool's deal on two counts. Number one, we know they are going to cheat. Every time we have had an agreement with them going all the way back to the Clinton agreement called the Framework Agreement, we provide real stuff. Here it's going to be a quarter of a million tons of badly needed food which the regime needs in order that it survive. We give real stuff, we get in return promises, every single one of them over two decades that they have not kept. And they have set up the violations in advance. They have actually said today that they will only carry out the agreement as long as talks proceed fruitfully. Well, that means at any time they can stand up and walk out and say that we are obstructing and break all agreements.

But the second part is worse. Even if they adhere to the agreements, this is completely useless. All it does is stop the uranium enrichment. But they have a uranium and a plutonium program. And the plutonium is untouched, and that is the program that actually has produced the nukes that the North Koreans have today. So it proceeds apace. There's no change at all. I think it's just a nice, soothing headline for an administration in an election year. I think it's a folly. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/29/12]